Agriculture: Common Agricultural Policy
	 — 
	Question

Lord Greaves: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress is being made on greening the common agricultural policy.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, agreement on common agricultural policy reform was reached in June at both the Agriculture Council and in the European Parliament. As part of the deal, from 2015, 30% of Pillar 1 farm subsidies will be dependent upon a series of greening practices being carried out on farms. We shall be working in the coming months to devise a greening policy for England. At the same time, we are making plans for the new rural development programme from 2015. I should declare an interest as a beneficiary under the current CAP.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, the progress made on the CAP is welcome, though not as radical as some people will allege. The increased requirements for environmental compliance by farmers who are getting the single payments are particularly welcome. The proposals for transferring more money from Pillar 1 to rural development, including environmental works, are also welcome. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will remain firm on these objectives and not give in to the short-sighted campaign by some people, including the NFU, to try to block these valuable changes?

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, we have a legal obligation to implement what is known as greening from 2015. No decisions have yet been taken on implementation. We will consult stakeholders, including farmers’ representatives and NGOs. We need to achieve genuine environmental outcomes from greening, without impacting unnecessarily on farmers’ business activities.

Lord Plumb: My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer. First, to satisfy 28 nations with a policy that is acceptable to all, when we see such a diverse structure of farming there, is a recipe for an uncommon market rather than a common market. Secondly, does my noble friend the Minister not agree that the emphasis at this time should be on the growth of food and the food security part of that, rather than just on greening? The whole emphasis seems to have turned to greening, switching from one pillar to the other. How do the new greening rules overlap with the existing agri-environmental
	scheme commitments, and what changes will those produce, as against the existing commitments faced, when the greening comes into effect?

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, there are a couple of questions in there from my noble friend. Our priorities for CAP reform have always been to help EU agriculture become more competitive and market-oriented while improving the capacity to deliver better environmental outcomes. It is unclear precisely what the greening requirements will look like since the detailed rules have yet to be drawn up. However, we are working to ensure that all these elements are complementary and coherent so that we have a smooth transition to the new programme in 2015.

Lord Curry of Kirkharle: My Lords, could I pursue with the Minister the issue of the existing environmental schemes referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Plumb? Many farmers have signed contractual agreements for the entry-level scheme, and I can claim some responsibility for that scheme, having recommended it. They are under an obligation under those contracts. Will these be jeopardised by the new greening arrangements? There is a lot of concern and some confusion among the farming community on this issue.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. If I have understood him correctly, no, it is very much our intention that they should not be adversely prejudiced.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, notwithstanding the progress being made on greening, what progress is being made on pruning the CAP?

Lord De Mauley: Well, my Lords, that is indeed a question. In the context of the reduced CAP budget, the UK’s key aims for the CAP reform negotiations were to increase the resilience, market orientation and international competitiveness of EU agriculture; to improve the CAP’s capacity to deliver environmental outcomes; and to simplify the CAP for farmers and authorities. We want an efficient and responsive agricultural sector in the EU and globally, and we want the future CAP to achieve this.

Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I declare my interests in the countryside. Does the Minister’s department recognise that success in greening policies relies very heavily on good will and implementation from farmers? Is the cart before the horse in this instance? Will the Minister outline what the Government want to achieve from greening measures, rather than transferring funds into Pillar 2 from Pillar 1 simply because they can?

Lord De Mauley: I understand the noble Lord’s question, and others have asked that. The Government’s view is that environmental outcomes can be more targeted and more effective if they are delivered through Pillar 2. There will be a new set of environmental measures within Pillar 2 but we will honour the obligation in Pillar 1 to achieve the greening that is set down.

Lord Tomlinson: Does the Minister accept that when we look at the European Union budget, it really does not reflect priorities? We have an agricultural budget that exceeds that of research and development and indeed that of employment measures. While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, on the need to maximise food production, we ought perhaps to take some lessons from the Cairns Group and put them into effect in Europe.

Lord De Mauley: I cannot find very much to disagree with in what the noble Lord says. We worked very hard in the direction in which he is moving. The cut to the CAP budget was €55 billion, which is roughly equal to the annual level of spending on the CAP budget and better than a real freeze.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, given the very different patterns of agriculture across the 28 member states, to what extent is there flexibility within the new arrangements for member states to implement the greening measures in a way that suits British farmers and builds on some of the very real progress that they have already made?

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. We have fought hard to achieve an element of flexibility in the greening requirements. Perhaps we have not got as far as we would have liked but we are negotiating with nearly 30 other states and, of course, the Parliament.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, can we inject some intelligibility into the language with which these things are described? It really is the most awful gobbledegook. How can people outside be expected to understand about caps, pillars, greening and all this nonsense?

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, that is music to my ears.

Bees
	 — 
	Question

Lord Hoyle: To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will implement the European Commission decision to restrict the use of neonicotinoid pesticides to protect bees.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, the European Commission implementing regulation requires the new restrictions to be in place by 1 December 2013. We will introduce the restrictions from that date.

Lord Hoyle: Will all these chemicals be monitored? Will the Minister also condemn those commercial interests which are introducing foreign bees with parasites that are damaging our own species?

Lord De Mauley: On the latter point, the noble Lord is right that parasites—particularly the varroa mite, but there are a number of others—are something that we really must watch out for. He asked whether the full range of neonicotinoids is subject to the restrictions. He is right to ask that. There are a couple that are not. I am not sure I can pronounce them but I will try: acetamiprid and thiacloprid—

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord De Mauley: I am grateful. These are not covered by the restrictions as they are of relatively low acute toxicity to bees. The restrictions apply to the remaining three neonicotinoids—which I hope noble Lords will permit me not to pronounce—and are intended to remove those uses that might cause bees to be exposed to the compounds. Therefore, uses permitted include spray applications made to crops after they have flowered.

The Earl of Selborne: I declare an interest as food grower; my living therefore depends on pollination. Does the Minister accept that, while it is very important to protect bees, it is equally important to protect all insect pollinators? Therefore we have to make sure that their habitat is conserved, which is a much wider issue than just protecting honey bees.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, yes. We have had this discussion in your Lordships’ House before. I was pleased to announce recently that we are developing a national pollinator strategy precisely because of the concerns my noble friend raised.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, may I recommend, as an alternative to pesticides, the method used by the winner of this year’s St Andrews Prize? Around the crop growing areas, the trees were equipped with beehives because the elephants, which were doing the major damage in that area, were terrified of bees. This not only produced safe areas for crops but meant that there was honey money as well.

Lord De Mauley: I am really very grateful to the noble Baroness. Farmers have not been complaining to me recently about the numbers of elephants but I shall keep my ears open.

Lord Knight of Weymouth: My Lords, reports this weekend that bees and other pollinators have bred well this year are most welcome. More concerning are reports that the lead government scientist on the effect of neonicotinoids on bees is joining Syngenta, one of the leading manufacturers of the insecticide. She previously worked on a Syngenta-funded project on bees and pesticides for FERA. Given the widespread concerns among the public about bee health, what assurances can the Minister give us that this closeness between policymakers and commercial interests benefits taxpayers more than shareholders?

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, of course, all public servants go through the proper procedures before they take up a role outside government after they leave government.

Lord Jones of Cheltenham: Noble Lords may have seen a recent programme on ITV about bees, in which the Food Minister David Heath and Matt Shardlow of Buglife gave their views on neonicotinoids. Mr Heath said that there are other chemicals that are even more damaging to bees. Is my noble friend able to tell us what those other chemicals are and what action the Government are taking to ensure that they are not used? While ensuring that our Government implement the suspension of neonicotinoids as soon as possible, will the noble Lord encourage Ministers and officials in his department and scientists who advise them on this issue to take time to watch “Horizon” on BBC2 at 9 pm this Friday, when the presenter Bill Turnbull, himself an experienced beekeeper, investigates “What’s Killing Our Bees?”?

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, as regards my noble friend’s second question, I am very grateful to him for resolving the thorny problem of how I should spend my Friday evening. As regards his first question, I am not absolutely sure of the chemicals to which my honourable friend referred. However, in the absence of neonicotinoids, we expect farmers to use the available products, such as pyrethroids and organophosphates, for their particular pest problems. Without something effective, the consequence for farmers could be a reduction in crop yields, potentially substantial in scope. Despite not being as effective as neonics, these other products are legal and have passed the safety tests set in legislation.

Lord Curry of Kirkharle: My Lords, the scientific evidence supporting this is sketchy at best. It appears that some useful work has been done in Australia. Are the Government researching the work that has been done in Australia to help us better understand the impact of these chemicals?

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, we certainly are aware of the work that has been done in Australia. In fact, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State went there recently and is certainly aware of it. We used that in making our case prior to the vote. That did not seem to work, so we are now working towards doing our own trials to fill out those evidence gaps.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, there is some evidence that bees can tolerate neonicotinoids. However, when combined with glyphosate, which is in the ubiquitous Roundup, their immune systems become affected. That is one of the reasons why they cannot withstand the varroa bug. Can the Minister say how much research is being done on combinations of pesticides and the way they affect bees, particularly their immune systems?

Lord De Mauley: The noble Baroness makes a point which has concerned a number of people. Considerable work has been done, which shows that chemicals with different toxic actions normally act
	independently. Chemicals with the same toxic action normally act additively. There is only limited evidence for combination effects in excess of those for individual chemicals.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000: External Communications
	 — 
	Question

Lord Strasburger: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what guidelines Secretaries of State adopt in deciding whether electronic communications sent from the United Kingdom to a United Kingdom addressee but routed outside the United Kingdom fall within the definition of “external communications” in Section 20 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Baroness Warsi: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships’ House will understand why I cannot go into detail on operational matters. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 sets out that authorisations for all interceptions of communications, internal or external, must consider necessity and proportionality. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has stated that privacy is at the forefront of the minds of Secretaries of State. Great care is taken to balance individual privacy with duty to the UK’s national security. The Interception of Communications Commissioner provides thorough and independent oversight of all of these considerations.

Lord Strasburger: I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. We now know that GCHQ is routinely hoovering up and storing prodigious quantities of the internet communications of millions of innocent people, turning us all from citizens into suspects. As far as I am aware, Parliament has not sanctioned this industrial-scale seizure of our private data by the state. Can the Minister please tell the House whether this blanket snooping on all of us is authorised by a Minister, and if so, which Minister sanctioned it, and under which section of which Act of Parliament?

Baroness Warsi: I do not accept the noble Lord’s question, or indeed the points he made in it. I can assure the House that we take the interception of communications incredibly seriously. For these actions to go ahead we need a warrant from one of the most senior members of the Government as well as detailed legal advice to support it. That decision will be reviewed by independent commissioners and implemented by agencies, which are bound by legal and ethical frameworks, alongside parliamentary scrutiny through the Intelligence and Security Committee. This provides one of the strongest systems of checks and balances and democratic accountability for secret intelligence agencies and their work anywhere in the world.

Lord Reid of Cardowan: My Lords, I think the House recognises that electronic communications have grown exponentially and are now global and transnational, not merely international. In order to have some perspective and context to this Question, can the Minister give us a rough indication of how many terrorist plots have been foiled and how many British lives have been saved through the legal supervision of those electronic communications?

Baroness Warsi: The noble Lord makes an important point which is, of course, based on his many years of experience in dealing with this very real threat. I cannot give precise numbers here at the Dispatch Box. However, I can say that secret intelligence work is vital to our country. It detects threats that our country is facing, ranging from nuclear proliferation to cyberattacks, it prevents serious and organised crime, it prevents and disrupts complex terrorist plots and it supports the work of our Armed Forces. These are all things that protect our country and its citizens.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, perhaps I may raise the more basic point of nuisance calls. In the past, I have asked why we cannot prevent them here and I have been told that if they are international calls we can do nothing to control them. It is only the calls started locally that can be controlled. Is it still the situation that all the phone calls we get advising us to do a million things cannot be dealt with because we have no control at all?

Baroness Warsi: I am not sure that I can answer my noble friend’s question. I do not have details of that in the brief. However, I can confirm that it is a question that my mother asks regularly so I probably should get the answer to it.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, does not the use of the terms “blanket” and “hoovering up” by the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, indicate a complete absence of knowledge about what GCHQ is actually doing?

Baroness Warsi: I am not sure that I would go that far, but of course I take the noble Lord’s point that the function of GCHQ is an incredibly important and vital aspect of our national security.

Lord Pannick: The Joint Committee on the draft Communications Bill made a number of recommendations for improving and updating the law in this area. Do the Government have any intention of implementing those proposals?

Baroness Warsi: The noble Lord will be aware that the matter has now passed through two parliamentary committees and it is the Government’s intention to bring the matter back to Parliament. However, at this stage, final proposals have not been drawn up.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: The Minister mentioned that ministerial licences had been specifically granted for such interceptions. Can she kindly tell the House
	roughly how many licences have been issued over a convenient period—whether it be the past 12 months or the past 24 months?

Baroness Warsi: I believe that that would be an operational matter. I think that noble Lords would agree that I take my responsibilities to this House incredibly seriously and that I am usually incredibly frank and detailed in my answers. However, I hope that noble Lords will bear with me when I say that that is an operational matter and that I can comment only so far on these matters.

Energy: Fracking
	 — 
	Question

Lord Harries of Pentregarth: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the blockade of the Cuadrilla Resources drilling site in Balcombe, West Sussex, what assessment they have made of the feasibility of pursuing fracking in the United Kingdom in the face of public resistance.

Baroness Verma: My Lords, the Government understand that there will be a range of public opinions and that communities need to be properly engaged and informed on the implications of pursuing the exploration of unconventional gas resources. We welcome the industry’s commitment to early engagement. The Government have set up the Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil and have made it a priority to help people understand the facts about shale gas. The UK has a strong regulatory system that provides a comprehensive and fit-for-purpose regime for exploratory activities.

Lord Harries of Pentregarth: I thank the Minister for her Answer. However, does she agree that the fears of the villagers of Balcombe are very understandable—not only the thought of a very significant environmental footprint, as we have had in the United States, but, more fundamentally, the fear of water pollution? I know that the latest study of the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering says that fracking takes place hundreds of metres below the aquifer, but does she not agree that the science is still in a fairly early stage? Would it not be better to wait until next year’s report of the United States Environmental Protection Agency before authorising any more fracking projects?

Baroness Verma: My Lords, I take the noble and right reverend Lord’s points very seriously. However, the Health and Safety Executive scrutinises well design and monitors progress to ensure that the operator manages risk effectively throughout the life cycle of the well. The well design is also reviewed by independent examiners. The Health and Safety Executive assesses all well notifications before construction and monitors well operations based on weekly reports to well specialists.
	Release of substances into ground water is regulated also by the Environment Agency. We have a very strong regulatory framework in this country and we should leave it to the regulators to ensure that all that needs to be done is done thoroughly.

Lord Teverson: Does the Minister agree that the greater environmental threat at the moment from energy is the resurgence of coal being used for electricity generation? Coal has now overtaken gas and accounts for 40% of total generating capacity, with most of it coming from Russia. Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s intention that unabated coal generation should cease within the near term?

Baroness Verma: My Lords, my noble friend makes some very important points. He will be aware that the Government are doing exactly that through the measures that we have in our EMR package to make generation from low-carbon resources more attractive than generation from coal. All existing coal plants will be required to meet the requirements of the industrial emissions directive, which aims to reduce emissions of harmful oxides of sulphur and nitrogen, and in particular we will make sure that we work towards coming off coal in the long run.

Baroness Worthington: My Lords, the RSPB yesterday highlighted the fact that updated planning guidance now recommends that decisions relating to wind farms must take into account protecting local amenity but does not require the same for fracking. Will the Minister explain the reason for this discrepancy? Also, given that the lobbying firm of the Prime Minister’s adviser, Lynton Crosby, has links to the fracking company, is this the latest example of putting the interests of big business ahead of the concerns of the general public?

Baroness Verma: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be fully aware that community engagement is the prime source from where we will get opinions for and against fracking and wind farms. On both issues the Government are working very hard and very closely with operators, developers and communities.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that it could be a mistake to discuss fracking in terms of the whole of the United Kingdom in one go? Obviously, in beautiful rural areas there are worries not just about drilling and fracking—which I think are exaggerated—but about trucks, deliveries, roads and disturbance, which are quite justified. However, there are large, uninhabited and desolate areas, certainly in parts of the north-east, where there is plenty of room for fracking, well away from anybody’s residence, and where it could be conducted without any threat to the rural environment. Does the Minister agree that a distinction should be made between one area and another rather than lumping them together, and that if we can push ahead with this kind of gas production, it will take us fast away from coal burning, which is increasing at the moment because of the delays in authorising gas production that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, talked about a moment ago?

Baroness Verma: My Lords, my noble friend raised a number of very important points. As noble Lords are aware, we are in the early stages of exploration at the moment. There will be areas of the landscape that will not be suitable for fracking, as my noble friend rightly pointed out. However, we are in the early stages, and as the Government are determined to ensure that we are dependent not on coal but on gas and low-carbon energy sources, my noble friend made some very important points.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I declare an interest as a resident of Lancashire who is aware of the enormous beauty of the Trough of Bowland. Will the Minister join me in condemning the alleged remarks of protesters in the south of England that all the fracking could be done in the north? Will she join me in insisting that the beauty of Lancashire is as important as—not more important than—the beauty surrounding, for example, Guildford?

Baroness Verma: My Lords, again I accept the noble Baroness makes some very important points. I am sure that my noble friend did not say that Lancashire was not as beautiful. All parts of this great country are beautiful.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, a large area in County Fermanagh has been identified as suitable for fracking. Of course, its successful development would mean a lot to the economy of Northern Ireland, and County Fermanagh in particular. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the recent tax incentives for those carrying out fracking will apply to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as to England?

Baroness Verma: My Lords, I believe that these are devolved matters but, in case I am wrong, I will write to the noble Lord and make available the information in the Library.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, when I get up every morning and look out the window I look across the valley at the beauty of Pendle Hill and reflect that Pendle Hill consists largely of Bowland shale. So not all Bowland shale is in remote, desolate and uninhabited places—in fact most of it is not. Does the Minister agree that what we really need is a properly organised commercial exploitation of shale gas in one place to see exactly how it works under the regulatory system that we have in this country? That might set everybody’s mind at rest, or it might not.

Baroness Verma: My Lords, I think that I made it clear in my opening remarks that we have an effective planning system that will ensure that we properly explore the feasibility of shale gas and other unconventional gas and oil in this country. DCLG has the lead on this but I will take the noble Lord’s views to the department.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, does my noble friend think that it would be prudent during her summer reading to make some study of the early days of coal mining?

Baroness Verma: My Lords, I will add it to the many tasks that I already have for my summer reading.

Inheritance and Trustees' Powers Bill [HL]
	 — 
	First Reading

A Bill to make further provision about the distribution of estates of deceased persons and to amend the law relating to the powers of trustees.
	The Bill was introduced by Lord McNally, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

BBC (Trustee Election and Licence) Bill [HL]
	 — 
	First Reading

A Bill to make provision for the election of the trustees of the BBC by licence fee payers and provisions in relation to civil enforcement of non-payment of TV licence fees.
	The Bill was introduced by Lord Pearson of Rannoch, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Standing Orders (Public Business)
	 — 
	Motion to Agree

Moved by Lord Hill of Oareford
	That the standing orders relating to public business be amended as follows:
	Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper).
	In Standing Order 40(9), insert at end “, except for balloted topical Questions for Short Debate on Thursdays, which shall be entered after the first motion for general debate.”
	Motion agreed.

Electronic Deposit of Documents
	 — 
	Motion to Agree

Moved by Lord Hill of Oareford
	That, in respect of any bill relating to High Speed 2 that is introduced into the House of Commons in Session 2013-14 and subsequently brought up from the House of Commons and to which the
	Standing Orders relating to private business are found by the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills to apply, it shall be sufficient compliance with:
	(a) any requirement under those Standing Orders for a document to be deposited or delivered at, or sent to, an office of a government department, body or person if it is deposited or delivered at, sent to or otherwise made accessible at that office in electronic form;
	(b) any requirement under those Standing Orders for a document to be deposited with an officer if it is deposited with or delivered, sent or otherwise made accessible to that officer in electronic form;
	(c) any requirement under those Standing Orders for a document to be made available for inspection at a prescribed office, or to permit a document to be inspected, if it is made available for inspection at that office, or is permitted to be inspected, in electronic form;
	(d) the requirement under Standing Order 27(7) or 36(3) relating to private business to permit a person to make copies of a document or extracts from it, if there is provided to that person, on request and within a reasonable time, copies of so much of it as the person may reasonably require and such copies may, if the person so agrees, be provided in electronic form;
	(e) the requirement under Standing Order 27(7) relating to private business for a memorial to be made on every document deposited under that Standing Order, if the memorial is made on a separate document;
	(f) any requirement under Standing Order 4A(1), 27A(5) or 83A(8) to make a document available for sale at prescribed offices, if it is made available for sale at an office in London.
	That this order shall not affect any requirement under those Standing Orders to deposit any document at, or deliver any document to, the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments.
	That any reference in those Standing Orders to a document which is deposited, lodged, delivered or sent under those Standing Orders includes a reference to a document which is so deposited, delivered or sent in electronic form.
	That any reference to a document in this order includes a reference to any bill, plan, section, book of reference, ordnance map, environmental or other statement or estimate.
	Motion agreed.

Standing Orders (Private Business)
	 — 
	Motion to Agree

Moved by The Chairman of Committees
	That the standing orders relating to private business be amended as follows:
	After Standing Order 83 insert the following new Standing Order:
	“83A Comments on environmental statement
	(1) This order applies to any government bill in relation to which the Examiner decides Standing Orders 4 to 68 are applicable and in relation to which an environmental statement is required to be deposited under Standing Order 27A.
	(2) In this order:
	“the relevant Minister’ means the Minister of the Crown with responsibility for the bill;
	“the environmental statement’ means the environmental information originally deposited by the relevant Minister in relation to the bill for the purpose of Standing Order 27A;
	“supplementary environmental information’ means any additional environmental information deposited by the relevant Minister, after the deposit of the environmental statement, to supplement that statement for the purpose of meeting the requirements of any EU Directive relating to environmental assessment.
	(3) The notice published under Standing Order 10 in relation to the bill shall state that any person who wishes to make comments on the environmental statement should send them to the relevant Minister in such manner and on or before such date as shall be specified by the relevant Minister in the notice, that date being no earlier than the 56th day after the first publication of the notice.
	(4) For the purpose of Standing Order 83 paragraph (3) shall be treated as one of the Standing Orders compliance with which must be examined by the Examiner.
	(5) The relevant Minister shall, in such form as may be specified by the Examiner, publish and deposit in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments any comments received by him in accordance with this order and shall also submit those comments to the independent assessor appointed under paragraph (6) below. The relevant Minister shall deposit a certificate in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments setting out the date on which all comments have been received by the independent assessor.
	(6) (a) If the bill originated in this House and if comments are received on the environmental statement in accordance with this order:
	(i) a report shall be prepared by an independent assessor summarising the issues raised by those comments;
	(ii) the Examiner shall appoint the independent assessor within the period for commenting on the environmental statement prescribed by paragraph (3) above;
	(iii) the assessor shall be instructed to prepare the report within such period as the Examiner shall specify, the end of that period being no earlier than the 28th day after the date certified by the relevant
	Minister, in accordance with paragraph (5) above, as the date on which the assessor received all of the comments from the relevant Minister;
	(iv) before specifying a period in accordance with sub-sub-paragraph iii above, the Examiner shall consult the relevant Minister on the length of this period;
	(v) the Examiner shall submit the report of the assessor to the House.
	(b) If a report is submitted to the House in accordance with sub-paragraph (a)(v) above, the Examiner has leave to submit the report of the assessor to the House of Commons.
	(7) If paragraph (6) above is applied, the bill shall not receive a second reading until at least 14 days after the report of the independent assessor on the comments on the environmental statement has been submitted to the House.
	(8) If any supplementary environmental information is deposited in relation to the bill:
	(a) it shall be prefaced with a statement that the information is being deposited as supplementary information under this order;
	(b) the requirements of Standing Order 27A in relation to the deposit of copies of the environmental statement shall apply to the supplementary environmental information;
	(c) copies of the supplementary environmental information shall be made available for inspection and sale at the offices prescribed by Standing Order 27A(5);
	(d) notice shall be published in accordance with Standing Order 10 (save in respect of dates) above stating that any person who wishes to make comments on the supplementary environmental information should send them to the relevant Minister in such manner and within such period as may be specified in the notice, the end of that period being no earlier than the 42nd day after the date of the first publication of the notice;
	(e) paragraphs (5) and (6) above shall have effect in relation to any comments received on any supplementary environmental information deposited in this House as they apply to comments received on the environmental statement and irrespective of the bill’s House of origin;
	(f) the Examiner shall examine and report to the House whether or not paragraphs (8)(a) to (d) have been complied with and Standing Order 83 shall apply to that examination;
	(g) the bill shall not receive a third reading in this House or, if supplementary environmental information has been submitted before second reading, second reading in this House until at least 14 days after the assessor’s report on the comments on the supplementary environmental information has been submitted to the House.
	(9) At third reading of the bill the relevant Minister shall set out:
	(a) the main reasons and considerations upon which Parliament is invited to give consent to the project to be authorised by the bill;
	(b) the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset the major adverse effects of the project.
	A written statement setting out this information shall be laid before this House not less than 7 days before third reading.
	(10) The costs of the assessor and also the costs of the process of appointing an assessor, incurred by the House by virtue of paragraphs (6) and (8)(e) above, shall be reimbursed by the government.
	(11) For the avoidance of doubt, any supplementary environmental information accompanying an amendment to a bill which, if the bill were a private bill, would require a petition for an additional provision shall be subject to paragraph (8) above and not paragraph (3) or (7) above.”
	Motion agreed.

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Code of Practice for Surveillance Camera Systems and Specification of Relevant Authorities) Order 2013

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Guidance on the Making or Renewing of National Security Determinations) Order 2013
	 — 
	Motion to Postpone

Moved by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
	That the Motions be postponed.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Motions in the name of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach be postponed until after the Motion later today in the name of my noble friend Lord Boswell of Aynho. I make the suggestion with the agreement of the usual channels because we anticipate that there will be a debate on the first Motion which may take some time. It would be preferable, therefore, not to delay all the other business before the House today.
	If the House agrees to this Motion—I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, signifies her consent from a sedentary position, for which I am grateful—these two approval Motions for the statutory instruments, which were considered in Grand Committee earlier this month, will be considered again, and I hope approved, as our last business later today.
	Motion agreed.

Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2013
	 — 
	Motion to Approve

Moved by Lord De Mauley
	That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20 June be approved.
	Relevant document: 6th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 22 July.
	Motion agreed.

Local Elections (Ordinary Day of Elections in 2014) Order 2013
	 — 
	Motion to Approve

Moved by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
	That the draft order laid before the House on 26 June be approved.
	Relevant document: 7th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 24 July.
	Motion agreed.

Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Automatic Enrolment) (Amendment) Regulations 2013
	 — 
	Motion to Approve

Moved by Baroness Stowell of Beeston
	That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26 June be approved.
	Relevant document: 7th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 24 July.
	Motion agreed.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
	 — 
	Order of Consideration Motion

Moved by Lord Newby
	That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 7, Schedule 1, Clauses 8 to 16, Schedule 2, Clauses 17 to 21.
	Motion agreed.

Intellectual Property Bill [HL]
	 — 
	Third Reading

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, this is a procedural Motion that is commonly put and it falls to the Chief Whip to do so. I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Intellectual Property Bill, has consented to place her prerogative, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
	Clause 13 : Offence of unauthorised copying etc. of design in course of business
	Amendment 1
	 Moved by Viscount Younger of Leckie
	1: Clause 13, page 12, line 19, after “person” insert “—
	(a) ”

Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, on Report we had further detailed debates about the introduction of criminal sanctions for the deliberate copying of a registered design. Noble Lords raised various issues intended to refine and improve the way the sanction operates. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, while opposing the principle of the criminal sanction, nevertheless sought to ensure that certain activities clearly fell outside the sanction. He said:
	“However, should the proposal be approved, we think that the Bill should also contain a defence for any person who reasonably believed that they were not infringing”.—[Official Report, 23/7/13; col. 1181.]
	To that end, both he and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, proposed an amendment on Report which sought to address this issue.
	Over the past few weeks, my officials and I have had a number of detailed discussions with stakeholders, including members of the International Chamber of Commerce, the IP Federation and the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys about the scope and operation of the proposed criminal sanction. I have listened very carefully to their concerns and to the concerns voiced by Members of this House. I am pleased to bring forward this amendment, which the Government believe goes to the heart of the concerns raised.
	As noble Lords will be aware, it has always been the Government’s clear aim that the offence should be directed to blatant and intentional copying of a design that belongs to another. In this regard, the Government remain concerned to ensure that the offence is properly focused on wrongful business behaviour and so minimises any potential chilling effect on businesses which operate legitimately.
	It is important that those who have acted diligently and decently, doing their best not to infringe the rights of others, should not have cause to cease innovating lawfully, simply for fear of falling foul of the offence. Consequently this amendment introduces to the existing defence of non-infringement a further defence of reasonable belief that the design in question was not
	infringed. This defence is dependent on facts within the defendant's own knowledge: his state of mind, the reasons why he held the belief in question and materials he can furnish to support that belief. It will help to ensure that the courts are able to reach a just and fair outcome in such cases.
	The defence is within the spirit of that set out in trade mark legislation, but the Government believe that the proposed formulation will result in a clearer and simpler application of the law. Noble Lords will recall that it sits alongside the existing defence of reasonable belief on the question of the validity of the registered design. In conclusion, the amendment will ensure that those who had sufficient reason to believe that their activity was not infringing would not be guilty of a criminal offence. This is a further safeguard for businesses which act innocently. I beg to move.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: My Lords, the arguments for and against criminal sanctions for designs have been extensively aired over our discussions on this Bill. Proponents feel that current civil enforcement is expensive for small innovators and that current civil sanctions are not dissuasive to large infringers. Opponents are concerned that unexamined IP rights are a dangerous basis for taking criminal sanctions and that there is a risk of stifling competition in useful products.
	We understand the Government’s aim in this Bill. As the Minister said, we were anxious to see if we could move towards a common position. However, we are still concerned about whether it is appropriate and proportionate, whether it would really deter those pirates and counterfeiters whose behaviour the public would consider criminal and whether it may turn out to have a stifling effect on innovation and competition.
	One concern, which we have expressed previously, is that the proposed provision could turn into a tool to be used by unscrupulous companies to the detriment of UK designers. It is reasonably inexpensive to register a design, especially as there is no effective examination involved. An unscrupulous company could apply to register designs it copied from a UK designer, then threaten that designer with criminal sanctions for producing his or her own designs. The prospect of defending a criminal action might be enough to make the designer give in. What sort of fairness does that speak to?
	As the Minister says, the Government’s intention is that blatant, deliberate copying of designs for commercial gain, safe in the knowledge that many of the victims will be unlikely to have the resources to respond, is an act worthy of punishment, and they believe that the UK needs a coherent approach to the protection of intellectual property rights. On the other hand, the measure is opposed by the IP Federation, the Intellectual Property Bar Association, the City of London Law Society, the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and a number of IP lawyers and specialists. I put it to the Minister that it may not turn out to be a brilliant career move for the IP Minister to cross swords, as he has done, with Sir James Dyson and, indeed, the Ministry of Defence on this point.
	As Roger Burt, president of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, says,
	“the Intellectual Property Bill could result in people being charged with criminal offences and locked up for up to 10 years, just for producing a design that looks ‘substantially’ like an existing design”.
	We tried to find a compromise position with the Government on this point. We wanted the Government to raise the bar for criminality so that criminal penalties could only be considered in cases, using the words used by the Minister, of “blatant, deliberate copying of designs, for commercial gain”, but we failed. However, we are glad that the Minister listened to one part of our argument, which is that the legislation as drafted might open a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences, potentially discouraging the very kind of legitimate, competitive risk-taking that policy makers have been keen to encourage as a driver of growth.
	We therefore welcome the government amendments tabled today, which propose a defence for anyone who reasonably or in good faith believes that their actions were non-infringing. We will continue to oppose the introduction of criminal sanctions for registered design infringement as a matter of principle. However, we are pleased that there will now at least be a defence for any person who reasonably believes that they are not infringing. The objective test of reasonableness should cover situations such as where someone has taken legal advice on the issue, or where an opinion of non-infringement is secured from the IPO opinion service.
	They should also extend more broadly to cover competent self-analysis and explanation by a defendant as to why he or she believed that an informed user would perceive the product as creating a different overall impression to the registered design. This is an important amendment and we are happy to support it.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, as the Minister knows, I have always been a supporter Clause 13. I know that many small designers will be delighted to see it contained in the Bill and I hope that it survives its passage through the Commons.
	Although I did not feel that the clause needed a huge amount of amendment or that it will be the blunt instrument that some people have predicted, if the addition of the amendment makes it more acceptable, it must be welcomed. I welcome the fine tuning that the Minister has carried out.
	In welcoming the amendment, and given the restrictions on speeches at Third Reading, I want to thank the Minister for the accessible and receptive approach that he has taken throughout the Bill. I hope that as the Bill goes through the Commons the further discussions that he has promised on lookalikes—and, in particular, on the comparative advertising issues which may be applicable to lookalikes—and on the kind of penalties that might be appropriate to digital copyright infringement will bear fruit.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, I echo the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to the extent that he has welcomed the Minister’s constructive response to
	some of the issues raised by my noble friends on the Front Bench and myself in Committee and on Report on the matter of the criminal offence. More broadly, perhaps I may I express my appreciation of the Minister’s scrupulousness and fair mindedness in the way he has responded to a range of issues raised by noble Lords throughout the various proceedings on the Bill. I thank him for that.

Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this short debate on the government amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Howarth, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that I have long since realised that as intellectual property Minister I cannot please everyone all of the time. I am certainly aware of the opposition from certain quarters, including CIPA, to the criminal sanction aspect of the Bill.
	I would like to take this opportunity to thank, in particular, the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Young of Norwood Green, who have put their names to the amendment, for their collegiate and constructive approach. I also extend my thanks to those Members on all sides of the House who have taken part in the debates on the Bill. I am grateful for the detailed consideration that they have included in this process, both inside and outside the Chamber. The House has engaged in its role of proper scrutiny, improvement and revision and the Bill which is being sent to the other place is greatly improved. I would also like to put on record my thanks to my Bill team and other officials for their expertise and support throughout this process.
	The amendment clarifies the scope of the criminal offence further and provides greater security and confidence to the UK’s designers. I commend it to the House.
	Amendment 1 agreed.
	Amendment 2
	 Moved by Viscount Younger of Leckie
	2: Clause 13, page 12, line 19, at end insert “, or
	(b) reasonably believed that the person did not do so”
	Amendment 2 agreed.
	Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [HL]
	 — 
	Second Reading

Moved by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
	That the Bill be now read a second time.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, the sole purpose of the Bill is to enable Ministers to support two draft decisions of the Council of the European Union. The European Union Act 2011 provides that Ministers
	may not support certain decisions in the European Council unless they are approved by an Act of Parliament. Neither decision can be adopted by the Council of the European Union without the unanimous support of all member states.
	The Bill provides Parliament with the right, given to it by the European Union Act 2011, to consider the proposed use of the Article 352 treaty basis. This article is used in those cases where further action is necessary to achieve one of the objectives set out in the treaties, but where there are no specific provisions to give the EU institutions a specific power to take that action.
	The two measures for which approval is sought are proposed Council regulations brought forward under Article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. The first draft decision establishes a legal obligation on the European institutions to deposit their paper historical records at the European University Institute in Florence. Previously, European institutions have voluntarily deposited their archives at the European University Institute, and the proposed move to an obligation seeks to provide long-term certainty that the archives will be preserved in accordance with recognised international standards at a single accessible location.
	A 1983 Council regulation already obliges the European institutions to preserve and provide access to their historical papers once those records are 30 years old, when they would no longer be in business use. The European Council, Parliament, Commission, Court of Auditors, Economic and Social Committee and Investment Bank currently meet that obligation by depositing their paper archives within the EUI on a contractual basis. The proposed legal obligation reflects these existing arrangements, and will not change the point in time at which the public can access historical records, or the place at which they can be accessed.
	Making this practice a legal obligation will help to ensure transparency and scrutiny of the European institutions’ work, and fits alongside the Government’s drive for greater transparency. A measure which allows for greater accountability around EU decision-making is one that the UK should surely welcome.
	As the EU moves towards digital record-keeping, the measure also provides that the European institutions should, where possible, make their records available to the public in digital form. In addition, the EUI is to be given permanent access to each institution’s digital archives to fulfil its obligation to make historical records accessible to the public from a single location once they are 30 years old.
	The Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Central Bank will be exempt from the obligations under the proposed regulation, but will be able to deposit their records on a voluntary basis. I would like to explain why this is the case. For the Court of Justice, this is because of the volume of records, most of which are case files often containing sensitive personal data, which need to be quickly accessed to support the court’s functions. For the European Central Bank, the exemption is due to the bank’s organisational autonomy and because it’s historical records are subject to a separate 2004 regulation.
	This measure will be financed by contributions from the depositing European institutions from their existing budgets, and will have no financial impact on the UK. The Italian Government have made suitable premises permanently and freely available to the European University Institute to ensure that the deposited archives of the European institutions are preserved and protected in accordance with recognised international standards.
	The Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee of your Lordships’ European Union Committee had the opportunity to consider this measure. Your Lordships sought clarification on the reasoning for allowing the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Central Bank to deposit their records voluntarily, and on the digital provisions of the proposals, both of which I have just outlined. The committee cleared the measure from scrutiny after the Government provided satisfactory clarification on these points.
	The Council has published the final agreed text of this measure and it has received consent from the European Parliament. It is therefore ready for adoption, subject to UK agreement.
	The second draft decision provides for the establishment of the Europe for Citizens programme for the period January 2014 to December 2020. This builds on an existing programme of the same name covering 2007-13, but will adopt a simpler and more effective approach. The programme is concerned with improving the way citizens can participate in and contribute to EU matters: first, by strengthening remembrance and common values; and, secondly, by encouraging broader engagement and debate.
	Commemoration and participation are the core elements of the programme. Around 20% of the overall budget will provide funding to commemorate both world wars and the victims of totalitarian regimes. It also seeks to raise awareness of the fundamental aim of the European Union to promote peace, values and the well-being of its citizens.
	The second and more substantial pillar of the programme, which will receive around 60% of the overall budget, is designed to encourage democratic and civic participation of citizens at European Union level by developing their understanding of the policy-making process in the Brussels institutions and promoting opportunities to empower communities and encourage social action, including volunteering.
	At a time when we hear so much about the democratic deficit of the European institutions, and the perception that they are remote from the people they were set up to serve, these are worthwhile and important objectives. Europe for Citizens is a funding programme that will support a range of organisations with a general European interest, with a view to stimulating citizens’ interactions on EU matters, together with organisations that promote debate and activities concerning European values and history.
	Like its predecessor, the programme will be implemented through grants based on open calls for proposals and through service contracts based on calls for tender. It will provide for the analysis and dissemination of the results of its activities, supported by regular external and independent evaluation. An interim
	evaluation report on the implementation of the programme will be drawn up by the European Commission no later than the end of 2017, and a final evaluation report no later than 2023.
	The programme has no new impact on UK domestic policy, and these types of activity have been supported for some time. It reflects the Government’s aim of localising action to encourage communities at grass-roots level. The continuation of the Europe for Citizens programme will ensure that a source of funding at European level will continue to be available to UK civil society organisations, and I would certainly encourage them to submit project proposals so that they may benefit from it.
	Looking to the future, I am especially pleased that my officials have obtained confirmation from the European Commission that funding from the Europe for Citizens programme will be eligible to support projects commemorating the centenary of the outbreak of World War I in 2014, with numerous events in both France and the UK being planned for this important anniversary. We anticipate the final version of the text to be adopted in the autumn, once the Commission has confirmed the final budget. It will then be submitted to the European Parliament for consent and subsequently be ready for adoption, pending UK agreement.
	The Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee of your Lordships’ European Union Committee had the opportunity to consider this measure. The committee considered the measure to play a useful role, and noted its relatively small budget. Following clarification by the Government of the need for a parliamentary debate prior to consent, it subsequently cleared the measure from scrutiny.
	It is important that the Europe for Citizens programme is agreed in time for projects to be funded from the time it starts. Our aim is for the Bill to receive Royal Assent before the end of 2013. This would enable the Council regulation to be approved in advance of the period during which it would be active. The Bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom, and its subject matter does not give rise to any devolution issues. There will be no financial effects or any impact on public service manpower as a result of the Bill. The provisions contained within it do not require an impact assessment. For Europe for Citizens, the EU Commission had originally proposed a budget of €229 million, representing an increase of around 7% on the budget for the existing programme of €215 million. Following the negotiations on the multi-annual financial framework earlier in the spring, it is hoped that that figure will be significantly reduced. This would be a realistic response to the constrained financial conditions which we all have to take into account, but not so severe as to jeopardise the integrity of the programme as a whole.
	I confirm that I do not consider that any of the Bill’s provisions engage European Convention Rights and so no issues arise as to the compatibility of the Bill with these rights. It is also the intention is for the Bill to come into force on the day of Royal Assent. For the reasons that I have outlined, I commend this Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, for so comprehensively introducing what is, ultimately, a very small measure. I do not intend to detain the House very long; I know that ; I know that the next debate, on the work of the European Union Committee, will engage your Lordships much more than this Bill will.
	We welcome both clauses, particularly on the depositing of historical archives. It will be very useful for researchers to be able to access information from one source—the European University Institute in Florence. The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, will be aware of how important transparency is to the EU’s citizens and commercial enterprises. He will also be aware of the debate that the board of the European Central Bank has been having on the lack of transparency of that bank’s minutes on interest-setting decisions. Given how relevant this is to London as a financial centre, although we are not directly engaged with the European Central Bank, will Her Majesty’s Government enthusiastically support those of its members who are seeking greater transparency? This is the only major central bank that does not publish its minutes at the moment.
	We broadly welcome Clause 1(2)(b) on the Europe for Citizens programme, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, pointed out, seeks to enhance understanding and to take action to build capacity for civil participation. Among the programme’s priorities, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, mentioned remembrance and European citizenship, which are profoundly important as we lead up to the centenary of the start of the First World War. He also mentioned democratic engagement and civic participation.
	That is the area on which I would like to press Her Majesty’s Government. I declare an interest as the parent of a 16 year-old. Having seen the national curriculum’s GCSE programme and the entire content of the secondary school education programme, there is very little mention of the European Union. There is certainly greater emphasis in history, religious studies and so forth on historical events that have affected the European Union as we see it today, but the actual processes, procedures, decision-making, structure and organisation of European Union institutions are not touched on in any depth of knowledge at all. There are no courses at A-level that prepare candidates for European Union decision-making studies or employment in the EU. While this lies in the purview of national Governments, this Government have been profoundly aware for many years of the lack of United Kingdom participation in the EU Civil Service and the institutions of the EU, and the extremely low numbers of civil servants that find themselves working at EU level. Will my noble friend tell us how we expect to boost our influence within EU institutions when we do not prepare our young people in any meaningful sense to be able to understand what the European Union is about in terms of day-to-day life?
	I have another point on democratic engagement and civic participation. As I was reading the programme’s lofty ideals, all of which I completely agree with, I looked at the terminology and the methods by which it
	is intended to appeal to civil society. It becomes evident that a group of bureaucrats of a certain age has dreamt up the programme, because it has no relevance to the way in which social media work and young people think, or to the communication means by which they engage with each other, irrespective of the remit of institutions. I shall give an example from page 6 of the programme. The Minister mentioned “Remembrance and European citizenship” and “Democratic engagement and civic participation”; he did not mention the third highlighted point, which is “Valorisation”. With the indulgence of the House, I shall explain what this means. It is described as,
	“a horizontal dimension of the programme … It will focus on the analysis, dissemination, communication and valorisation of the project results from the above-mentioned strands”.
	I was so impressed by this attempt at defining “valorisation” that I looked it up in the Oxford English Dictionary, where it is defined as
	“to give or ascribe value or validity to … by artificial means”.
	That is profoundly important. All these programmes are top-down rather than bottom-up. They are guided rather than being spontaneous in any sense; anyone who has worked with civil society will know that bottom-up approaches are far more important. They do not speak to citizens in terms that enthuse them about the value of the European Union. While one commends the programme for what it is, if we in the United Kingdom are to challenge the anti-European bias in our media and public discourse, we will have to do better than this.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I listened with great interest to what my noble friend Lord Gardiner had to say in taking us through the Bill. I am particularly interested in it because I played some part in the previous Bill on this subject so it is good to be talking about it again.
	I have no objection to the first part of the European Union (Approvals) Bill—if it is appropriate to deposit papers and historical records at the European University Institute in Florence, so be it—but I find the second and major part rather difficult. I am surprised by the draft decision in relation to the Europe for Citizens programme.
	I have managed to get hold of the Council of the European Union’s document on the programme, which came out on 4 July. Pages 9 and 10 talk about its specific objectives being to,
	“raise awareness of remembrance, common history and values and the Union’s aim that is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples by stimulating debate, reflection and development of networks”,
	and then to,
	“encourage democratic and civic participation of citizens at Union level”.
	It continues:
	“In order to achieve its objectives, the programme shall finance inter alia the following types of actions … Mutual learning and cooperation activities such as … Citizens’ meetings, town-twinning, networks of twinned towns … remembrance projects with a … European dimension”.
	I do not see how all that fits in with the present programmes and ideas of some of the most serious people in the Conservative Party. Here we are: we are just removing ourselves from the justice provisions of the European Union. It is ironic, for example, that we are planning a referendum on whether we stay in the EU and at the same time taking hold of this Bill with plentiful support. These situations may not seem not to contradict one another, but I think that they do. For that reason I should like to hear more from my noble friend on this subject. It is not a problem for me personally. I have always been in favour of our active membership of the European Union and convinced that it is only through that active membership that Britain will grow. I should like to think that the Bill goes some way towards supporting that view, but it comes at a slightly odd time.

Lord Liddle: My Lords, on these Benches we support the principle that the Bill should come before this House and we support its detailed content. I hope that it will not detain the House for very long in its further stages. We support the principle, because we believe that it is right that Parliament should approve this type of decision, and we support that aspect of the EU Act 2011.
	As regards the specific content of this approvals Bill, we support the clarification of the need for the EU to keep a proper archive. As the noble Lord said, this is important for transparency. We also support the Europe for Citizens programme. I should like to ask a couple questions on the first matter and make some comments on the second, particularly in the light of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
	On the matter of the archive, I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer these questions today, but it would be interesting if he could write to me. I wonder whether that archive will contain the material of real substance that will enable historians to analyse how decisions were taken in the European Union. In my experience, you do not get much of that flavour from the official documents or from the official conclusions of ministerial meetings. A historian would need access to things such as the notes that the secretary of the Commission meeting took about who said what, the correspondence between commissioners and the records of the chef de cabinet meetings. In this way it could be seen how decisions were prepared. Access would also be needed to the verbatim reports that are made of the European Council meetings, rather than simply the conclusions. I would throw in the proceedings of COREPER. Although it is not an official European institution, it played a crucial role over the years.
	Will those documents be part of the archive? This is an important point. We have seen in the 60-year development of the European Union that we are moving step by step from a world of secretive diplomacy, where suspicious nation states came together to take the first bold steps towards union, to a much more open democracy. Analysing that process will be very important for the future.
	It is on that theme that we support the Europe for Citizens programme. It is right that, as Europeans, we should commemorate things such as the 100th anniversary
	of the First World War. It is, of course, one of the main reasons why the idea of Europe is still so vital. I always remember reading Mitterrand’s final speech to the European Parliament. My French is appalling, but he reminded everyone that:
	“Le nationalisme, c’est la guerre”.
	That is one of the fundamentals of Europe. Therefore, we should be commemorating those events.
	Even in the United Kingdom, there is a sense that we need to have a cross-border, cross-national debate about the future of the European Union and that we need to engage citizens in it. We, together in the European Union, are part of what political scientists call a community of fate. In other words, what happens in all those countries really matters to us; and what happens in the European Union really matters to us. A classic example is that the British economy has not avoided the consequences of the euro crisis simply because we are outside the euro.
	The present Government are coming to terms with the need for debate. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, mentioned the justice opt-outs. More interesting is the decision to opt back in to most of the most important parts of the JHA agenda. That is because the Ministers dealing with this point recognise that we are part of a community of fate—we have to take these decisions together. We can see the same in the single market, where the Government are increasingly emphasising the importance of the single market to our economy.
	I do not want to be too sociological about it, but there is a European demos in the making, and the euro crisis has brought it to the fore. We should be looking at this as an opportunity to promote debate between citizens about how they see Europe and the future of the Union.
	If the Prime Minister’s plans go ahead—of course, I do not think that he will win the next general election, but were he to do so—and there is a renegotiation in 2016 and a referendum in 2017, I hope that that will be played out against a background of much commemoration of Winston Churchill’s great speeches calling for Europe to unite.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I am most grateful for all the contributions that have been made. We have had a short but most interesting debate—indeed, a prelude to further consideration of the European adventure. These two EU measures, both of which provide for more citizen engagement in the EU, are of great benefit.
	First, we discussed a measure to secure the long-term future of the EU institutions’ archives which takes account of the advances in record-keeping in an increasingly digital age. I was of course intrigued by the point of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, about the substance of archives. For someone such as me, who is interested in history but extremely amateur, the point of the history book is when it hits on something that goes beyond the ordinary notes and into the most intriguing parts. Although I cannot answer the noble Lord precisely, I very much hope that he is right that
	this will be an archive that historians will find of great value, not just for the agenda and minutes of the meetings but for the discussions and how they came to the decisions that they made. I will consider that and obviously come back to the noble Lord if I have anything of greater value to add, but I am with him on that.
	The measure also reflects the flexibility required in introducing digital archiving and accordingly avoids prescribing technical solutions, which would not allow for rapidly evolving technologies. Approving this measure would contribute to ensuring the transparency and scrutiny of the EU. I was particularly taken by the point that my noble friend Lady Falkner of Margravine made about transparency because the Government definitely support the general principle of transparency, both domestically and within the European Union. I wish that I was able to comment more fully or specifically on the minutes of the European Central Bank but I very much hope that it will continue to make as much of its archive available as possible because that, again, plays into what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, was saying about the importance of archives.
	This also reflects our own Government’s priority in using digital platforms as a means of facilitating contact between citizens and public institutions. Again, my noble friend Lady Falkner of Margravine mentioned the engagement of young people and I endorse very much the concern that she raised. However, we need to remember that there are young people coming forward who need to know more. One of the great advances with digital platforms is that I very much hope that they will be a medium that young people will find more user-friendly. It is this digital technology which provides the means for bringing people of all generations more closely together, an aspect of today’s world that is very much to be welcomed. I saw this for myself in a recent visit to the outstanding National Archives at Kew, which certainly opened my eyes to the scope and opportunities that these advances provide.
	Perhaps I may turn to the Europe for Citizens programme, which should be seen in the same context. I hesitated at what my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry said about the contradiction because this programme will run from next year to 2020 for all of Europe, and I see this as a positive. Whatever decisions the British electorate may or may not make about the position of this country in Europe, I believe that from 2014 to 2020 there is a great citizens’ programme across all the nation states, which is of value to this country and to the citizens of all the countries. I do not see it as a contradiction in that way. This is a positive, whatever happens.
	It is particularly poignant at this moment to commemorate those in the two world wars and their lives, and many of your Lordships have been much involved in that. There are certainly many communities up and down the land involved in town twinning. I know that they come from all generations and all countries. Again, this is a very positive part of where taxpayers’ money is going. It is going, through the European institutions, towards this being a rewarding exercise.
	This is a real opportunity for civil society organisations. To pick up on something that my noble friend Lady Falkner of Margravine said, we encourage a much more positive engagement at institutional and local level for citizens of all ages. I particularly go back to young people who have ideals. Having many ideals about the common values that are shared is an important part of the European adventure, so I very much hope that this programme will be seen as an opportunity. I very much agree with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, made about the opportunities. I also hope that this Bill will not take too much time because, in the end, this is a measure that we need to get through to enable the important work to begin for 2014.
	If there are any points that I have not answered, I will come back to noble Lords but I believe that these two measures will definitely benefit citizens across the European Union. I commend the Bill to your Lordships and ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
	Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

European Union Committee: 2012-13 (EUC Report)
	 — 
	Motion to Take Note

Moved By Lord Boswell of Aynho
	That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on its work in 2012–13 (1st Report, HL Paper 15).

Lord Boswell of Aynho: My Lords, this Motion invites the House to take note of the report of your Lordships’ European Union Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing, on that committee’s work in the 2012-13 Session. I am pleased that this round-up of our committee’s important work has been given valuable time on the Floor of the House as its work has been recognised, not least by Sir Jon Cunliffe, the present UK permanent representative to the EU, as,
	“enormously influential in Brussels and on Government thinking”.
	I recognise that many in the Chamber today are very familiar with our work, but we are anxious to encourage a wider understanding of it among all Members of the House. For the benefit of those who are perhaps less au fait with it, I shall summarise the Committee’s role. It scrutinises EU policies and proposed EU laws, seeking to influence their development; holds Her Majesty’s Government to account for their actions in, and connected to, the EU; and represents the House in its dealings with the EU institutions, and other member states and their national parliaments. Much of this work is carried out by the six EU sub-committees, and we will be hearing from a representative of each sub-committee during the course of this afternoon’s debate.
	I will mention a few highlights from this past Session, but before doing so I wish to pay tribute to the sub-committees’ hard work and meticulous efforts. A
	rigorous approach to detail is what this House is well known for and we apply that principle to the scrutiny of EU affairs. We seek at all times, and I hope that normally we succeed, to act in a non-party-political way to advise the House neutrally on EU matters. Given the current rather fetid political climate, it is essential that we continue in that vein, and I have no doubt that we will continue to rise to that challenge. I am deeply and genuinely grateful to each of the chairmen, the members of all the committees and, by no means least, the expert staff team that supports them so ably.
	My committee and its sub-committees have undertaken an extraordinary level of work this year. We have scrutinised over 270 EU documents and proposals, sent 653 letters to Ministers examining the Government’s position and putting forward the committee’s own views, heard from over 210 witnesses in person, considered around 270 pieces of written evidence and published 16 reports—all this at a time when, in accordance with the House’s wishes, we have reconfigured our sub-committee system.
	I shall now mention a few of the most significant pieces of work we have done during the Session. The Select Committee itself regularly conducts one-off hearings with the Minister for Europe regarding the outcomes of European Council meetings. During the 2012-13 Session there were three such hearings, covering topics as diverse as the G20 growth and jobs action programme, the situation in Mali and the EU’s neighbourhood policy. In addition, we followed up our inquiry into the multiannual financial framework and conducted and completed a new inquiry into the future of European Union enlargement. That report emphasised the importance of enlargement to securing stability and economic prosperity for the European Union itself and its neighbourhood. It analysed the way in which the enlargement process was conducted by the Commission and the Council, and made recommendations about how to make the process more transparent and better understood by European citizens.
	I turn to the sub-committees. The Economic and Financial Affairs Sub-Committee has carried out a range of important work but I want to highlight two aspects. First, it has conducted regular evidence sessions following up on the euro area crisis report of 2012, which highlighted concerns about the future of the euro area, raised further questions about the desirability and efficacy of eurobonds and set out how the democratic legitimacy of solutions to the crisis could be ensured. Secondly, the sub-committee undertook a significant piece of work considering the consequences for the United Kingdom of proposals for a European banking union, as well as, of course, other work.
	The Sub-Committee on Internal Market, Infrastructure and Employment undertook a timely inquiry into a proposal to set Europe-wide gender quotas for company boards. The committee urged the Commission to bring forward a system for monitoring the numbers of women in senior positions, but warned against quotas as they failed to address the root causes of inequality. It further questioned the Commission’s assertion that national measures to improve gender balance on boards
	were not working and, following a debate in the House, a reasoned opinion was issued raising concerns about subsidiarity.
	The External Affairs Sub-Committee continued to operate at considerable pace, dealing with a wide range of proposals on foreign affairs, development, defence and international trade. During the Session it conducted an inquiry into the EU’s External Action Service, the EEAS, which concluded that the service had been successful in a number of areas, such as developing a comprehensive approach to countries and regions like the Horn of Africa and the Sahel, and in calming the relations between Serbia and Kosovo. However, the committee also highlighted challenges for the EEAS.
	The Sub-Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries, Environment and Energy undertook a noteworthy inquiry considering whether the EU’s energy policy met, and would continue to meet, Europe’s basic requirements for energy. The committee expressed some alarm at the uncertainty, complacency and inertia surrounding the need to secure an affordable supply of low-carbon energy, and highlighted concerns about where the necessary investment in energy infrastructure could be found. This report, like several others that I have mentioned, received considerable press interest, but the unreported, perhaps seemingly unexciting yet essential and detailed work of our committees is also vital to ensure that the Government are properly held to account and that Parliament is well informed about EU matters.
	The Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee completed a high-profile inquiry into fraud against the EU budget. The inquiry report highlighted that the European Union’s antifraud system had a number of weaknesses and that the Commission’s estimates of the cost of fraud to the EU budget in its annual reports were significant underestimates. That sub-committee also undertook an important piece of work in an innovative partnership with the Home Affairs, Health and Education Sub-Committee regarding the block opt-out decision under Protocol 36, which has been the subject of great debate recently in the House. The report of this inquiry has been recognised as a dispassionate, sound analytical tool to aid the Government and Parliament in forming views on the desirability of the opt-out.
	Separately, the Home Affairs, Health and Education Sub-Committee examined the operation of the Commission’s global approach to migration and mobility, GAMM, and the implications of the UK’s partial participation in the European Union’s asylum and immigration policies. The committee concluded that the control of immigration from third countries was rightly the responsibility of individual member states, but that a co-ordinated approach by the European Union and its member states was imperative. The committee called for the GAMM to take a more focused approach in future and for the Commission to have a more prominent role internationally, particularly in forums such as the Global Forum on Migration and Development.
	Noble Lords will no doubt wish to focus on the work of each sub-committee in greater detail but I want to record again my thanks to the sub-committee chairmen and members, and in particular to thank the noble Lords, Lord Teverson, Lord Carter of Coles and Lord Bowness, the outgoing chairmen of sub-committees C, D and E respectively, and welcome the new chairmen of those committees—the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Corston.
	The work of our committee and its sub-committees depends on the necessary information being provided in a timely manner by the Government, in accordance with its obligations. Although several departments produce excellent Explanatory Memoranda well within agreed deadlines, I regret that Her Majesty’s Treasury has repeatedly fallen short of the expected level of openness and helpfulness to Parliament—a matter which I am, once again, pursuing with Ministers. In addition, we are disappointed to have observed a gradual decline in the quality of the Explanatory Memorandums being produced by a range of departments. To quote one of my own straplines, an Explanatory Memorandum is not much use if it does not explain itself. We do all we can to support departments, and so we should, and yet we can only carry out our role effectively if given the right tools. I have no wish to be pompous but I do need to be firm about it. Despite the current pressures on civil service departments, the necessary resources must be given to these tasks as European Union matters affect the people, business and other organisations of this country in many different ways. In any case, as a matter of principle, government departments should meet the obligations into which they have entered.
	Our committees continue to make significant contributions to interparliamentary conferences and work. I am most grateful for the work of COSAC—the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union. It is not the easiest acronym and not always the easiest organisation but it is one which I think is beginning to feel its feet. COSAC meets twice a year in plenary form and is a crucial, if little known, formal mechanism for interparliamentary co-operation.
	Furthermore, we continue to benefit enormously from good links with the chairs of the EU scrutiny committees in the other place and the devolved Administrations, not least through our twice-yearly EC-UK meetings. There are also regular tripartite meetings bringing together members of our committee, the European Scrutiny Committee in the other place, and United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament. We met twice during the 2012-13 Session. These meetings raise important issues and allow for an exchange of views and understanding of each other’s work that might otherwise be lacking. Finally, our excellent EU liaison officer and the National Parliament Office provide a valuable link to Brussels and help to build effective relationships with other national parliaments and parliamentarians.
	To conclude, what does the current Session hold? As usual, we will be engaging with a wide range of issues in inquiries—including, at Select Committee level,
	the role of national Parliaments in the European Union, and, among the sub-committees, youth unemployment, genuine economic and monetary union, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and the continuing discussion about the block opt-out—while maintaining our routine scrutiny function.
	At a time of ongoing discussions about the European Union and the United Kingdom’s future relationship with it, it is even more important than ever that the House retains its ability to understand, impartially examine, challenge and influence the European policies of Her Majesty’s Government, and the development of European Union policy and law across the whole union. The family of EU committees, which I have the honour to head, is an important mechanism for that, and I commend this report of its work in the Session 2012-13 to the House. I beg to move.

Baroness Corston: My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, who chairs the main European Union Select Committee of your Lordships’ House with the utmost diligence and courtesy. I want also to place on record that for the majority of the 2012-13 Session Sub-Committee E—the committee on justice, institutions and consumer protection—was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. He certainly handed on to me a very well-oiled machine.
	It reminds me somewhat of an exchange with the then clerk of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, when I was its founding chair more than 12 years ago. He told me that he had previously been clerk of the Defence Committee, which he described as like Inspector Morse’s Jaguar. It was a classic, needed a little light touch on the tiller and the accelerator, had regular servicing and caused very little trouble, whereas, he said, the Joint Committee on Human Rights was a kit car with the instructions in Hungarian. The committee handed on by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, was much more like Inspector Morse’s Jaguar and I am very grateful for that.
	In the previous Session there was more than enough work for Sub-Committee E. In addition to very substantial scrutiny work, the sub-committee carried out one full inquiry, a joint inquiry together with Sub-Committee F, and a follow-up inquiry. I shall briefly describe each. We conducted an inquiry on combating fraud against the European Union’s finances. It was launched in July 2012. It was timed, in part, to coincide with the publication by the Commission of its proposed directive designed to protect the EU’s financial interests via the criminal law. Evidence was taken from a range of parties, including academics, the United Kingdom police, government agencies, the relevant European Union Commissioner and, after some reluctance, the Exchequer Secretary, Mr David Gauke. I will say at this point how surprised we were that the Government refused permission for us to take evidence from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and it took quite a lot of prodding for the Minister to appear before us at all. In addition, members of the committee travelled to Brussels to take evidence from, among others, MEPs, Eurojust, and OLAF, the European
	Union’s anti-fraud body. In total, the sub-committee held 13 evidence sessions with more than 30 individual witnesses.
	Our subsequent report identified a number of weaknesses in the EU’s current anti-fraud system, including a lack of enthusiasm among the member states in taking their responsibilities to combat EU fraud seriously, weaknesses in the ability of OLAF to fulfil its remit to protect the EU’s financial interests, and a considerable mismatch between the known levels of fraud perpetrated against the EU’s finances. The Commission’s figure of €404 million for 2011 and the committee’s own estimate in the region of €5 billion are at variance to say the least. In their response to the report the Government stated that,
	“no amount of fraud should or will be tolerated”.
	While they recognise that in some areas the EU’s anti-fraud system needs improvement, overall, however, the Government believe that the system is “on the right track”.
	In the course of the inquiry, we were unable to ascertain whether any government department or agency in the UK takes overall responsibility for fraud against the EU’s finances. No one was able to tell us with any confidence how much known EU fraud is perpetrated from within these shores, despite the fact that the individual member states are required to tell the relevant EU authorities when they uncover these offences. In our report, we called for a single government department or agency to take responsibility for fraud against the EU’s finances. However, the Government rejected this recommendation on the grounds that any move designed to place responsibility for the matter on to what they called a “single UK department or agency” would create duplication and slow the process down.
	On the sub-committee’s estimate that the level of fraud against the EU’s finances is more likely to be €5 billion as opposed to the €404 million that the Commission estimates, the Government say merely that they are “concerned” by this figure, but that it,
	“is not a figure that is recognised”.
	They do not say who it is not recognised by, and the response may be somewhat perfunctory.
	Finally, in relation to the upcoming proposals for the creation of a European public prosecutor’s office—the EPPO—the Government state that the creation of another EU body is not the answer to the problem of EU fraud. The Government recognise that the current system is “not perfect” but suggest that it works and continues to improve, and that, as far as the UK is concerned, the anti-EU fraud position is “strong”. The Government have stated that the best way of ensuring that the decision to prosecute remains a national matter is not to participate in any EPPO. They also point out that the treaty envisages a system whereby the EPPO will be empowered to,
	“investigate, prosecute and bring to judgement”,
	those responsible for committing EU fraud, which is a role that conflicts with the UK system where the investigation and prosecution functions are kept entirely separate. The proposals to create the EPPO were published last week and the sub-committee intends to launch an inquiry into these proposals in the autumn.
	I now turn to the workload of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The sub-committee carried out a follow-up inquiry into this matter in the later part of the Session. We sent a call for evidence to all those who provided evidence during the original inquiry and also took oral evidence from the Minister for Europe. In our report, we expressed concern that the number of cases pending before the Court of Justice continues to rise year on year and we called for the right balance to be struck between the length of time it takes for the court to dispense with a case and the quality of its judgments in order to preserve its credibility. We also found that although the latest statistics from the general court indicate a reduction in the number of pending cases, the number of new cases has more than doubled between 2000 and 2010. Those cases are of great interest, principally to business in this country. We therefore reiterated that there is still a very strong case for increasing the number of judges in the general court and urged member states without delay to find a system for appointing additional judges to safeguard the stability of the court and the quality of the judiciary.
	In their response, the Government agree with most of the report’s conclusions. They appear to have shifted their position a little in that they are being more positive about appointing additional judges to the general court as a means to deal with the court’s backlog of cases. Also, the Government now appear to favour a merit-based selection process to appoint additional judges to the general court instead of a rotating system of appointment. The sub-committee hopes that progress will be made soon on resolving the general court’s excessive workload and it will follow developments in this area with interest.
	I now turn to the 2014 opt-out decision on Protocol 36 to the Lisbon treaty. I do not intend to go into any of the detail on this inquiry. I will leave that to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, when he addresses the House. Suffice it to say that on 9 July this year the Home Secretary made a Statement that provided more information about the Government’s approach to the opt-out decision. At the same time, the Government published Command Paper 8671—not the easiest of documents to digest—which sets out a list of 35 measures that the UK will seek to rejoin if the opt-out is exercised and includes Explanatory Memoranda that cover the 130 measures falling within the scope of the opt-out decision. The first debate was held in the House on 23 July and a vote took place on the opt-out decision. The House supported the Government’s decision to opt-out and endorsed the list of 35 measures they would seek to rejoin. A second vote on the final package of measures will take place in due course, following the conclusion of the negotiations with the Commission and the Council.
	Sub-Committees E and F have agreed to reopen their inquiry and report to the House on the 35 measures that the Government wish to rejoin. The call for evidence for the reopening of the inquiry was published on 18 July and the deadline for submitting evidence is 11 September. Oral evidence will be taken from Ministers on 9 October. The sub-committee is looking forward to continuing working on this issue, together with the Home Affairs Sub-Committee.
	As to the reform of Eurojust, last week the Commission published proposals for a regulation on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Co-operation—known as Eurojust. The UK opt-in applies to these proposals and the sub-committee will consider them in September.
	I turn to our enhanced scrutiny work. At the beginning of the previous Session, the sub-committee took over responsibility for consumer protection and culture from the now defunct Sub-Committee G. In this regard, we scrutinised the European Consumer Agenda and proposals for a common sales law. The sub-committee held an informal briefing with the consumer rights campaigning organisation Which? in October and heard oral evidence from Jo Swinson MP, Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs, on the alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes. More recently, the sub-committee held a private briefing from Ofcom on the Commission’s Green Paper Preparing for a Fully Converged Audiovisual World: Growth, Creation and Values. The sub-committee may continue work in this area in the autumn.
	The sub-committee is also conducting enhanced scrutiny on the Commission’s package of proposals on trade mark reform. To this end, the sub-committee has sought comments from the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys on the proposals, and further activities may continue in the autumn. The sub-committee has been interested for some time in the work of the Fundamental Rights Agency and the possible overlap with the work undertaken by the Council of Europe. Accordingly, the sub-committee will invite the Fundamental Rights Agency to give evidence on its role and the work it carries out. That is expected to take place in late October.
	Finally, those noble Lords who were involved in the European Union Select Committee acknowledge that this committee represents and does some of the most important work done in your Lordships’ House. To scrutinise all European Union legislation is an extraordinarily important function. I am proud that this House does it so well and I am grateful for the opportunity to take part.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I will speak on the work of Sub-Committee D which, for the uninitiated, deals with agriculture, fisheries, environment and energy. I have had the honour to chair it since the start of this Session in May, but all credit for the past year’s work must go, of course, to my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles. I extend my thanks to him and to his committee during that session; he has set a remarkably high bar. I also note that since May, without the benefit of quotas, we now have 50% female and 50% male chairs of the EU sub-committees.
	The obvious feature of the past Session for Sub-Committee D was the addition of energy policy to the remit following the reduction in the number of sub-committees. While this was a substantial new policy area, it was very well aligned with the committee’s existing responsibility for climate change policies. As one might expect, the sub-committee approached
	its new remit with great enthusiasm and, as we have heard, chose to focus on EU energy policy for its principal inquiry during the previous Session.
	The energy report was debated only yesterday in Grand Committee, so I will not dwell on content. However, I am pleased that many noble Lords made reference to our report during the debate in Committee on the Energy Bill. It is pleasing that an EU committee report has served the House in its wider context of scrutinising UK legislation—which helps to emphasise the obvious point, that UK legislation cannot be scrutinised in isolation from EU legislation, and vice versa.
	Our energy report received widespread press coverage in the UK and beyond and has been referred to by the members of the parliaments of many other member states. Our report was primarily timed to feed into discussions at EU level on its future energy and climate change policy framework. It is pleasing that the report was published in good time to do that. I know that the Commission has been drawing on some of the material and phrases from our report in its consideration of future policy options. Our phrase “the energy trilemma”, to describe the balance between affordability, sustainability and security of supply, is now coming into common parlance.
	Beyond the inquiry, the sub-committee’s scrutiny focused on major reforms to the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policies. Both have demonstrated the long-term added value of the work that we do in this House on EU scrutiny. In the case of fisheries reform, for example, the thrust of the new package very much reflected the sub-committee’s 2008 report. In the case of agricultural reform, the new rural development policy reflects several of the recommendations that the sub-committee made in its Innovation in EU Agriculture report some years ago. While EU decision-making is slow, and it is difficult sometimes to show immediate policy impact, I think that we can demonstrate the long-term beneficial effects of examining policy areas at an early stage of their development.
	Not content to just leave these issues as they lie, the sub-committee is undertaking short pieces of work on how these reforms will be implemented. In fisheries, we have recently held evidence sessions to examine issues relating to the new ban on discards of over-quota fish. In agriculture, we will hold several sessions with stakeholders in the autumn to have a look at implementation issues and concerns on CAP reform.
	Turning to the sub-committee’s plans for the new Session, we are about to launch a new inquiry into food waste prevention, examining how EU policies can assist rather than hinder attempts to prevent food wastage, and how local, national and EU initiatives can be harnessed most effectively. This will build on previous work that we have done on agricultural innovation and fisheries discards. We hope that this will feed into work being done by the European Commission on food waste and on waste policy more generally. In particular, it is our aim to produce a piece of work that will be helpful to the incoming European
	Parliament and the Commission next year; it is an attempt to build a “coalition of the willing” with other member state parliaments.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and I have been very fortunate to have an enthusiastic and knowledgeable committee backed by a skilled and dedicated secretariat. They absorbed the new area of energy policy with great enthusiasm. However, I flag up my strong belief that any further attempts to reduce EU scrutiny committees should be resisted. From my experience on Sub-Committee B previously and now Sub-Committee D, I do not believe that either could take on a new major policy area without the quality of the work suffering in some way.
	The Minister for Europe and the Foreign Secretary have recently flagged up the importance of national parliament scrutiny of EU legislation, and they are right to do that. However, if we are to do such work, it needs to be properly resourced and supported, not just in this House. Frankly, I am dismayed at how much time my small team of three has to spend chasing up government departments which do not provide information on time and within deadlines, or which produce explanatory memoranda that are neither explanatory nor particularly helpful. Above all, we must be very cautious not to see the important issue of national parliament scrutiny of the EU obscuring the need for effective scrutiny of government action within the EU. That is a very important part of the scrutiny role of this House and it is one that we must hold on to.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, this is a very good and very necessary time for the House to debate the work of its EU Select Committee during the previous Session. Whatever view one takes of the future role of the EU, and of the UK’s role within it, it is surely a debate worth having ahead of what is likely to become an exceptionally intense period of debate about the UK’s continued membership of that Union.
	Moreover, it is a time when the role of national parliaments in shaping and influencing EU legislation is coming into sharper focus than ever before. As the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, mentioned in his contribution to this debate, the Select Committee is on the verge of undertaking an inquiry into the role of national parliaments. I suggest that we need to subject our own performance to the very closest scrutiny. I welcome particularly the contribution of our distinguished and effective chair during the period in question, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, who moved this debate. He has made a major contribution over the period since he took up the chairmanship and I am convinced that he will continue to do so.
	This debate also marks the end of the first Session after the reduction in the number of EU sub-committees, to which several previous speakers have referred. The number of sub-committees, which conduct the majority of the Select Committee’s business, was reduced from seven to six. This allowed the House to create new committee activities in other policy areas. While I, like many others, was rather unhappy with that decision, we have nevertheless done our best to make it work.
	The abolition of Sub-Committee G resulted in the reallocation of its remit among the remaining sub-committees, my own included, expanding their respective workloads accordingly. Despite that, the six sub-committees have taken on and discharged their new roles effectively, as is being highlighted in the contributions to this debate. However, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in saying that I think that it would be a gross error if any attempt were made to reduce further the number of sub-committees. The elastic is being stretched pretty tight and the burden on our extremely able staff has become greater in the past year. It would be frankly irresponsible to increase it further.
	I will focus first on the work of the Sub-Committee on Home Affairs, Health and Education, which I have the honour to chair, and to pay tribute to its members both past and present, some of whom are here today, for their hard work and effective contributions. During the period in question, the sub-committee produced two major thematic reports, one on the EU’s global approach to migration and mobility, normally known as the GAMM, of which more later, and one on the UK’s 2014 justice and home affairs block opt-out decision, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, indicated, I will say a bit about.
	This report was produced jointly with the Sub-Committee on Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection, first under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and now under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Corston. Incidentally, joint work by two sub-committees of the sort that we did—every single one of our meetings and all our evidence sessions were held jointly—is an extremely unusual occurrence and is not without its logistical difficulties. I believe that its success in this instance is a testament to the flexibility and adaptability of the system and, above all, to the willingness of the members of the two sub-committees to work together as a single team. I must mention that the report that we adopted, which I think was quite influential and will continue to be so, was adopted by unanimity—by people from all three main parties and from none. This was certainly something of an achievement. That joint report appeared in April of this year. We recently reopened the inquiry following the Home Secretary’s Statement of 9 July. A supplementary report to the House will be produced by the end of October, as the Government have proposed.
	A third thematic report, on the EU’s next five-year justice and home affairs programme—likely to be known as the Rome programme as it is likely to be adopted under the Italian presidency in the second half of 2014—was announced by the committee yesterday. However, as this deals with matters falling within the present Session, I will make no further reference to it in this debate.
	With respect to the report The EU’s Global Approach to Migration and Mobility—the GAMM—when the sub-committee conducted its inquiry into this matter, it was conscious that debates about migration, like migration itself, are not new. However, recently the tone has sharpened and there is a risk that a rational and measured discussion of complex issues will be drowned out by cries of populist outrage, riding on the back of stress caused by the recession.
	Our report sought to avoid falling into that trap. The committee’s view was that, given the current and prospective demographic challenges facing Europe, member states, in particular those with skills shortages, will need to be flexible in the operation of legal migration from third countries in order to secure the economic growth and competitiveness that they desperately need. At the same time, we also recognise, rightly in my view, that member states retain the primary decision-making responsibilities in this area, including determining the number of third-country migrants they choose to admit to their territory. We did not suggest that there should be any change to that, and nor did any of our interlocutors, including the Commission and the European Parliament.
	The report also focused on a specifically UK policy choice: the Government’s inclusion of international students in their current policy objective of reducing net migration to the UK by 2015 to the tens of thousands per year. My committee was one of five Select Committees of the Lords and Commons, the chairs of which wrote to the Prime Minister last January to argue that it made no sense at all to include genuine international students within the public policy scope of the Government’s immigration policy, and that by so doing the Government were risking serious damage to what is, after all, one of the UK’s most valuable, successful and vibrant invisible exports. I have not yet heard a single convincing argument in support of that policy, and I ask the Minister to address this matter when he winds up the debate.
	I agree that yesterday’s announcement of an international education strategy by the Minister for Science and the Business Secretary was a step in the right direction. However, a good deal more than warm words will be needed if the higher education sector’s contribution to our involvement in the global race is not to be undermined by the Government’s immigration policy. I noted that the Secretary of State for Business, in an interview at the weekend, said what I believe: namely, that regarding students as immigrants is absurd.
	I return to the important matter of the block opt-out. I will not revisit the complex arguments for and against it, nor delve into the byzantine complexity of the issue’s component parts, which the House had ample opportunity to debate as recently as 23 July, and will no doubt return to again before the end of the Session. Instead, I will focus on the process. On parliamentary engagement and handling, the Government’s approach to the opt-out decision has thus far been notable in a number of respects—but, alas, for all wrong reasons. Since the Home Secretary made her initial statement to Parliament about the matter last October, the committee has been persistently denied official information to aid its scrutiny of this important matter. Deadlines have continually slipped, and attempts to elucidate a coherent government position and rationale have proved elusive.
	As noble Lords will be aware, the situation finally improved only on 9 July, when the Home Secretary made a further Statement about the Government’s intentions in this area. However, any feeling of welcome was again undermined by the extraordinarily short period allowed to this House before we were asked to debate and vote on exercising the opt-out. I admit
	that we were allowed a bit longer than the House of Commons, but not much. That was compounded by the Government’s decision to respond to the committee’s April report more than a month late, and only hours before the debate that took place on 23 July. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance of more punctilious behaviour in the future handling of this matter. I ask him to undertake in particular to keep the House regularly informed of the progress of negotiations with the Commission and the other member states once they formally begin in early November.
	In addition to these two major inquiries, my sub-committee also conducted enhanced scrutiny of the Commission’s proposal for a revised tobacco products directive. This involved taking oral evidence from pro and anti-smoking organisations and from Public Health Minister Anna Soubry MP, as well as receiving a large volume of written evidence. While public debate in the UK has focused on the contentious matter of plain packaging, I remind the House that provision for this does not feature in the proposed directive. It will be left as a matter for individual member states to decide.
	The output of the process of enhanced scrutiny was a detailed and well received letter to the Minister, outlining the sub-committee’s position on the proposal, which was broadly supportive. This work has been followed up in the current Session with another round of enhanced scrutiny of the Commission’s related proposal for an EU cigarette-smuggling strategy, on which oral evidence has been heard from officials at the EU’s anti-fraud agency, OLAF, and at Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs. I will say, in advance of our taking that further, that what the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, said about her sub-committee’s inquiry into OLAF showed again how difficult it is to co-ordinate all parts of the British Government that have an input into this area. I am sure that we will address that when we write to Ministers after the recess.
	In conclusion, I turn briefly to a matter that falls outside the purview of my sub-committee, and which relates to the Government’s balance of competences review—a matter dear to the heart of the Minister who will reply to this debate. While the EU Committee as a whole, and its sub-committees, have not engaged directly with this review, my sub-committee has made recommendations relevant to the review in both its recent reports: the one on the GAMM and the one on the block opt-out. It expects these to be taken into account by the review’s current second semester, which will include a report on free movement, which was covered in our GAMM report, and in the forthcoming third semester, which will include a report on policing and criminal justice. I hope that those will both be taken on board, and I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that that will be done.
	On free movement, the committee’s GAMM report, which I discussed earlier, concluded that the free movement of persons is fundamental to the structure of the EU and is an integral part of the single market, with revision of its terms in the treaty being neither desirable nor feasible. The logic of producing the review’s report on police and criminal justice matters after the Government had made their decision to opt out of a number of existing pre-Lisbon policing and criminal
	justice measures totally eludes me. After all, both the block opt-out decision and the decision to seek to rejoin 35 measures are precisely designed to determine the balance of competences in this area—so why on earth did we not conduct the review before attempting to take the decision?

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am grateful that the occasion of this debate on the European Union Committee’s 2012-13 report gives me two opportunities. The first opportunity is to pay tribute to the work of the European Union Committee chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for the important work of scrutiny of EU legislation. The fact that so much of our legislation is directed from the European Union—from Brussels—or amended in response to the deliberations of the European Parliament makes it essential that we keep a watching eye on all that goes on.
	The European Union Committee does a great job, mainly behind the scenes, in ensuring that all EU proposals, directives, regulations, information—usually called “superinformation documents”—and the rest are scrutinised. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has a very tough responsibility, but he is ably supported by the clerk, Jake Vaughan, by legal advisers and by staff, who prevent anything slipping through the net—or the “sift”, as it is commonly called. The House owes them all a great debt of gratitude.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, described, the scrutiny process is carried out by six sub-committees. Today’s debate therefore also gives me the opportunity to enlighten Members of the House about what goes on behind the scenes in one of those six sub-committees. I act as chairman of EU Sub-Committee B, whose remit is the internal market, infrastructure and employment. I am pleased to have the opportunity of sharing with the House the highlights of the 2012-13 Session.
	Before doing so, I must thank all current and past members of the sub-committee who have worked so hard, week after week—and we do meet weekly—and all of whom have contributed greatly to our work in this Session. Due to them we have accomplished much, enjoyed our Monday afternoons, and developed a great atmosphere of mutual respect. That may seem too good to be true but believe me that it is so. Attendance is excellent and even yesterday there were minor regrets—I have to say minor—that we were not meeting again for many weeks. I think we all feel that we need this break and are looking forward to buckets, spades, sandcastles and paddling as well as a well earned break from the wave after wave of directives, regulations, and other documents which pile up each week awaiting scrutiny.
	We were sad to say au revoir to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who is now chairman of Sub-Committee D. I thank them all. We gladly welcomed the noble Lords, Lord Cotter and Lord Freeman. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, previously chaired Sub-Committee B but has never said, “In my time we did x, y, and z”, although I am sure that he has been tempted to do so. We also gladly welcomed the noble Baroness,
	Lady Hooper, who came to us from Sub-Committee A. As an aside, the newcomers—bringing specific, most valuable experience and expertise—seem to have moved seamlessly into our work patterns and schedule.
	Of course, without our clerk, policy analyst and committee assistant we could not have coped. All three were new to us but, yet again, the powers that be managed to appoint exactly the right persons for each of these critical roles. I can safely say that without each of them our work output would be well below that which we have achieved and they are universally brilliant in guiding us, working indefatigably, anticipating our needs, filling in the gaps of our knowledge on the workings of the EU, and ever ready to go that extra mile. They do all that plus they are so nice and, at times, funny. Yes, we are a happy, productive, determined team and I feel deeply honoured to be their chairman.
	During the year we completed two new inquiries and published the subsequent reports. The first inquiry was on women on boards, and we published our report on 9 November last year. This subject has been debated several times in this House and, indeed, it seldom seems to be off the business and other pages in the press. We regard it as unfinished business as we are now told that the final decision will not be taken until November this year. This is quite strange because there was a delay in coming clean about what the directive was going to be in November of last year, so it indicates that there is quite a lot of disagreement both in the Commission and in the Parliament. Behind the limelight, however, we continue to encourage other member states to take our line—namely, no quotas—while suggesting that the Commission bring forward an EU-wide system for monitoring progress.
	What did we learn from this inquiry? We certainly developed better engagement with other parliaments, greater use of video conferencing, establishing links with the Commission, all of which were most satisfactory. Time spent in deepening understanding and making and keeping alive contacts is time well spent and—with the greater use of modern technological developments—does not necessarily entail expensive time-wasting travel. Similarly we have initiated and maintained mutually respected links with officials in Whitehall in the various departments who are responsible for the sectors of our very wide remit. Our dealings with departmental heads and the coal face have led to much greater understanding and are a terrific help in adding to the ultimate value of our scrutiny role. The subject of Explanatory Memoranda has come up already in this debate and this has been a deeply discussed issue. Certainly one or two departments are already beginning to produce documents that we can understand, so they are Explanatory Memoranda.
	The second inquiry was on the effectiveness of EU research and innovation proposals, and we published our report on 30 April. We highlighted the fact that the EU’s competitiveness has been, and is, increasingly threatened by the emphasis placed, and work undertaken, in emerging economies. We focused on the ability of the EU to compete and retain its reputation and leadership in this sector. It was a short inquiry but we received a great deal of interesting evidence from a very wide range of witnesses including those from the
	SME sector—the sector on which are pinned the hopes of so many of us for growth and job creation. This is ongoing. The Government response has been received and we hope to receive the response from the Commission before we debate the report in the autumn.
	What did we learn from this inquiry? It was very challenging for the committee. It dealt with an important and broad subject in a relatively short time—three and a half months between the call for evidence and publication of the report. I have to say that it was a steep learning curve for those of us who feel scientifically challenged. However, we had strong help from certain members of our committee who are leading lights in this area. This is a great example of the very wide breadth of expertise which is available in this House.
	I now turn to other work. The committee believes that it is most important to revisit our previous work. For example, we had a meeting with the incumbent Minister of Transport to address the lack of government engagement in our previous report on the Channel Tunnel—another item that is back in the news. We also had informal, information-gathering talks with Deutsche Bahn and Eurotunnel. Revisiting work is scheduled for the Women on Boards report as it continues through the EU legislative process. We are still inclined to participate in the debate, following the developments since the publication of our report.
	During the Session the committee made history, publishing two subsidiarity reports under the reasoned opinion mechanism introduced in 2009 by the Lisbon treaty. Incidentally, in the four years since 2009 only four such reports have been published by the UK. We had two of them in the space of about three months— on aid for the most deprived and gender balance on boards. The issue of subsidiarity has provoked much discussion and debate in the committee, and in the House, about the meaning of this difficult concept. One example is the Oral Question on subsidiarity asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, on 5 March 2013.
	What about current and future work? We plan enhanced scrutiny on EU migrants. The Minister, Mark Harper MP, gave us valuable evidence a week ago. Our next big inquiry will be on youth unemployment. We shall launch a call for evidence in September, and we had a scoping meeting yesterday to discuss the shape of the inquiry and the potential witnesses.
	To conclude, I am sure that we are no exception to the other sub-committees in that we take our work very seriously. We are committed to ensuring that the quality of our work is beyond reproach. We are dedicated to providing the best scrutiny to assist our Government to play a leading, constructive role in the EU and to work for the best outcomes, not only for the over 500 million inhabitants of the 28 member states but, particularly, for the citizens of the UK within the EU. Last but by no means least, we will continue to maintain the high reputation of the House of Lords EU Committee in EU circles and elsewhere.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, for his excellent stewardship of the Select Committee, and for his
	encouragement for us to think outside the box sometimes, in ensuring that our work is mirrored in the work of the House as a whole. I say to both our Front Benches—I give an example of the Tyrie commission on banking that was recently published—that we are going to see the advent of the Liikanen proposals that will come before us from the European Union, and are not always sure that things done on the European scene in the single market are matched in the way that they should be by the work in this House. I hope that we in the Select Committee can promote that process even more urgently.
	Some of the important elements of the Economic and Financial Affairs Sub-Committee of the European Union that I chair include the European banking union, on which we published a major report in December 2012, led by the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy in his four presidents report, backed up by the European Commission’s blueprint.
	Suggestions were for a proposed three-pillared approach; that is, a single supervisory framework, a single resolution mechanism which was recently published, and a single deposit insurance mechanism. However, the last of those three was quickly dropped under German pressure and progress on the second, as I have said, has been recently published. As such, the proposals initially were set out only in relation to the first pillar, the single supervisory framework. The committee’s report reflected on those proposals as well as on the further steps towards banking union that were required. We undertook a very deep inquiry which included evidence from the President of the Council, Herman Van Rompuy; the Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, Michel Barnier; the vice-president of the European Central Bank, Vitor Constâncio; and the chairman of the European Banking Authority, Andrea Enria. I should also say that when we were in Brussels we took advice on the European Banking Union from Sir John Cunliffe. He, of course, has now been nominated as the new Deputy Governor of the Bank of England.
	The committee found that a European banking union was urgently required to restore credibility to the euro area banking system and to break the vicious circle between banks and sovereigns. Although the UK has stated that it would not participate, the consequences for this country could be enormous. The committee warned of the significant risk that the UK could be marginalised as banking union participants moved towards ever-closer integration. This, in turn, threatened to fracture the single market as the authority of EU’s 27 bodies, such as the European Banking Authority, came under threat. The committee warned that the Government’s assurances about the impact on the City may prove to be misplaced. It called for the Government to ensure that London’s pre-eminence as a financial market was not imperilled and that the integrity of the single market was retained. UK isolation in such debates would be disastrous.
	The committee also expressed regret that the three-pillared approach was so quickly undermined under political pressure. However, it welcomed the single supervisory mechanism proposals as a significant first step. It agreed that the ECB should take on supervisory
	responsibility over euro area banks but warned that the concentration of so much power in one institution meant that powerful safeguards needed to be put in place, and that there should be no conflict between the European Central Bank’s supervisory and separate monetary policy tasks. Indeed, the ECB should be accountable to the European Parliament and to national Parliaments in the exercise of its supervisory powers, and there should be equality in the decision-making process within the ECB between the euro area and the non-euro area participants and the role of the European Banking Authority in representing the 27 member states must not be undermined. It now represents the 28 member states.
	The committee has not rested on its laurels since publication of the report. It has engaged in several rounds of correspondence with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as a deal on the single supervisory mechanism emerged, which, in spite of some of our concerns about the bail-in deal, is in itself an undoubted achievement. We have given particular consideration to changes to the voting arrangements in the EBA and the so-called non-discrimination clause, which the Minister argued would be a significant achievement and safeguards against any restriction of the UK’s role as a financial centre of the single market. However, we were concerned that such safeguards were not as watertight as thought. There will be a review of voting arrangements if and when there are four or fewer non-participating member states. As recent developments with Latvia remind us, all but two member states are under a legal obligation to join the single currency.
	We examined banking union in the context of the Commission’s broader proposals to strengthen fiscal, economic and political union in our new inquiry into genuine economic and monetary union and its implications for the United Kingdom. One notable recent development is the publication of the Commission’s proposal for the second pillar of banking union, the single resolution mechanism. We will continue taking evidence on these important subjects. We have meetings lined up with the Commission’s Vice-President, Olli Rehn, who recently said that that vicious circle between the banks and sovereigns was to be diluted rather than broken. We shall quiz him on that. In Frankfurt, we shall meet Dr Constâncio who we have interviewed previously on these important issues.
	The committee published an important report on markets in financial instruments regulations and directives, MiFID II: Getting it Right for the City and the EU Financial Services Industry. We highlighted the threat to the City of London by trying to block off third countries coming into the single market of 28 members; the dangers of the pre-trade transparency that was originally there which threatened to undermine proper competition within these trading instruments; and the algorithmic or high-frequency trading, an issue to which we will have to return under a different title.
	We also highlighted the financial transaction tax. At the end of the 2011-12 Session, we published our report, Towards a Financial Transaction Tax?. The committee’s report was highly critical of the Commission’s proposal for an FTT. We argued that it would not fulfil any of the Commission’s five stated objectives
	and that there was a significant risk that financial institutions would relocate to avoid the tax. The UK had made clear that it would not participate. Yet we warned that an FTT would nevertheless have a significant effect on the United Kingdom, not least because of the obligation placed on UK authorities to collect the tax under EU mutual assistance agreements or under the provisions of joint and several liability.
	Follow-up work to that report has consumed much of the committee’s attention during the 2012-13 Session and at the start of the current Session. We criticised the Government and the City for what seemed to us to be an entirely complacent attitude, assuming that such a flawed proposal could never survive, but this seriously underestimated the political will behind the proposal in Brussels. While the Commission’s original proposal was ditched in late 2012, 11 member states, led by Germany and France, announced their intention to implement the FTT under the enhanced co-operation procedure, whereby a smaller number of member states may pursue a proposal, so long as the rights of non-participating member states are not infringed. When the new proposals were published, they included a new provision, the so-called “issuance principle”, whereby financial institutions located outside the European Union would also be obliged to pay the financial transaction tax if they traded securities originally issued within the EU; for example, a trade in Volkswagen shares between London and New York would be caught. This raised concerns about the potential extraterritoriality of the tax and added to the committee’s concerns about the potential deleterious effect on the United Kingdom.
	In light of this, we undertook a follow-up piece of work early this year when we urged the Government to consider a legal challenge against the proposal. This finally did the trick and awoke the Treasury from its slumber. Sure enough, the United Kingdom has since launched a legal challenge. Indeed, the Minister has acknowledged,
	“that the grounds on which the Government has challenged the authorising decision are all points on which your Committee has previously flagged concerns”.
	It is also becoming clear that participating member states are growing increasingly nervous about the impact of the financial transaction tax. Informed observers have predicted that, given the political capital invested in the project, an FTT will survive in some form, but that it will be significantly watered down, possibly to mirror UK stamp duty. We wait to see and, of course, the committee will continue to keep a close eye on developments.
	Finally, the euro area crisis: amid these complex legislative proposals the committee has also sought to remain informed on the political and economic context in which the eurozone and the European Union as a whole operates. During the 2012-13 Session we continued with our twice-yearly updates on the eurozone crisis. In January and February 2013, we held a seminar on the effects of the austerity agenda on the EU, which was attended by academics, campaigners, think tanks and a number of EU member state ambassadors.
	At that time, EU leaders were suggesting that the worst of the crisis was over. In that context, we warned that the biggest enemy in the worst of the crisis was to suggest that the worst of the crisis was over. Complacency is a danger that we must guard against, especially as it can affect the United Kingdom and the integrity of the single market. Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that the committee has not let up on its examination of these issues. Even this morning I have hot-footed it straight from a meeting of Sub-Committee A, where we agreed our latest letter on the crisis, in which we set out our views that the EU tendency to muddle through the crisis may not be enough.
	I conclude with this: as others have expressed, we, too, have been disappointed by our relationship with the Treasury and, in particular, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Greg Clark. We have been disappointed both by the tardiness of receiving explanatory memoranda and the lack of quality that we should expect from the Government. When he was before us last week, we were so angry with these failures that I threatened from the chair the meeting’s conclusion that we would bind up all his explanatory memoranda in a leather-bound document to be presented to him when he left so he could take them away on his summer holidays and read some of the poor quality explanatory memoranda that we received from Government. Whether he is keen to have that happen, I do not know.
	Finally, perhaps I may say that it is a joy to have chaired the committee. I am particularly pleased that Stuart Stoner and Rose Crabtree have been working so hard—as all the members of the sub-committees have expressed. We really are blessed with the very best of help from the young men and women who attend to us.

Lord Bowness: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, for so comprehensively introducing this report and for his leadership of the Select Committee during this past session. I am delighted, too, that this is the second year running that we are debating the committee’s annual report. I am pleased that it is not purely historic on this occasion, but includes a chapter setting out the future work that the committee and sub-committees will undertake.
	I hope that this practice will continue, that the debate on this report will become a major occasion in your Lordships’ House for debating European Union matters and that Ministers will want to contribute. Indeed, I hope that the usual channels might find another time, when the minds of Members are on other things, rather than the fact that this is the last day—and almost the last hours—of the Session before the Summer Recess.
	I do not wish to repeat what has already been said, so perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I make some personal observations on this report and pose some questions. I particularly want to underline the importance of our participation in the inter-parliamentary meetings, and of building relationships with members of the European Parliament and the Commission. This gives us an opportunity to make our views known and find
	out what other people are thinking: not just members of the European Parliament from the United Kingdom, but those within the Parliament who occupy important positions in the particular committees. It gives us an opportunity to do that and it is particularly important in the codecision process.
	I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, for her review of the work of Sub-Committee C and her kind comments to me. I wish the noble Baroness, my successor as chairman of the sub-committee, well for the coming Session and thank those members who served with me in the past, as well as the staff for their considerable assistance. The noble Baroness referred to the three reports that were carried out in the past Session. I will make one or two brief comments on each. On the follow-up report on the workload of the Court of Justice, I am delighted that the Government have now been persuaded of our view that additional judges are needed in the general court.
	We know that it has stalled because agreement cannot be reached on how to determine which countries have more than one judge; but I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government are keeping this very much at the top of the agenda. Equally, I hope that if cash—money, lest I be misunderstood—seeks to intrude on this matter, a Written Statement made to the House on 2 July by my noble friend Lady Warsi will be borne in mind. While the amount that the UK contributes to the budget of the Court of Justice of the European Union is not clear, on the basis that we meet some 11.5% of the cost of the European Union, our share of the court’s budget would be £32 million. According to that statement, we put £25 million into a variety of other international justice organisations, including the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and made voluntary contributions to a lot of other international tribunals. Given the importance of the Court of Justice, I feel that this puts its relative cost into perspective.
	The other inquiry dealt with preventing fraud against EU finances. As the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, said, we were particularly disappointed with the apparent lack of engagement by both the Government and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. I particularly regret the rejection of the suggestion that one department, or one office within Government, should be responsible for our efforts against fraud on European finances. More contentiously and on a personal note, I regret the outright rejection of a European prosecutor’s office even before any proposal had been made. That seemed to me somewhat ill judged. It now looks as though this may form part of the revised Eurojust proposal; and although separate from the proposal for a European prosecutor’s office, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, referred, there are likely to be close links. I ask the Minister: will this lead to the Government not opting in to the new Eurojust proposal? Eurojust has been identified by the Government as being very important, as shown by their desire to reapply to rejoin in the present format. How workable will rejoining in the present format be if we do not join in the revised Eurojust?
	The other important inquiry that was carried out has already been mentioned. I refer to the joint inquiry carried out by the home affairs sub-committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I do not propose to rerun last week’s debate. Suffice it to say that it was the failure of the Government, I am sorry to say, to consult on timing and the form of the Motion as promised which led to the difficulties—which, I am glad to say, were solved by my noble friends Lord McNally and Lord Taylor of Holbeach and their revised Motion. However, the status of that Motion and what difference a Motion in your Lordships’ House and one passed in the other place makes to the mandate and the decision-making process is far from clear.
	The Explanatory Memorandum which formed the Command Paper is also far from clear. It must be an outstanding candidate for an award for being the least helpful and most confusing Explanatory Memorandum ever produced. However, having said that, the Motion that came before the House did not solve the problem for those of us who wished to express a deeply held belief that it is a mistake to opt-out but wanted to make it quite clear that, if we did, we should rejoin at least the 35 measures that were listed. It was a dilemma I could resolve only by not voting.
	With this in mind, the European Union Select Committee was quite correct in not becoming directly involved with the Government’s competence exercise. Let the committee comment when the deeds have been done by government or in the course of an inquiry when relevant. The interests of government and Parliament are not always the same even if the same words are frequently used. For Governments, parliamentary co-operation tends to be the support of the Executive by Parliament on a whipped vote. That is not the tradition of the evidence-based, considered reports on which we in this House act.
	I also note, from an exchange at Questions yesterday, that my noble friend Lady Warsi, in her Answer to a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said that,
	“the Prime Minister regularly discusses a range of EU issues with his counterparts, including changes needed to make the EU more competitive, flexible and democratically accountable. These discussions include the substance of reforms and the means to achieve them, which range from legislation to treaty changes”.—[ Official Report , 29/1/13; col. 1533.]
	This must inevitably raise the question of how these discussions are taking place before we have seen the publication and the results of the competence review. On what basis are these discussions taking place? I do not expect the Minister to tell us but it is a question that inevitably forms in our minds.
	I appeal to the Minister to confirm that, as it is the stated desire of my noble friend the Prime Minister for us to remain a member of the European Union, there will be a major drive on the part of Ministers to emphasise the benefits and desirability of remaining a member, and that this message will be made just as clear as the message that the public are to be given a chance to decide whether or not to stay in the European Union.

Lord Davies of Stamford: My Lords, I declare my membership of Sub-Committee A, which handles economic and financial issues in the European Union. I have been on that sub-committee for only two months and can take no credit whatever for the fine reports that my noble friend Lord Harrison has outlined. I pay tribute to him as a very effective chairman of that committee. The reports have received a good response—not just here but on the continent—and have been acknowledged by the Government as having contained early warnings, which unfortunately in many cases they decided not to take. Like others, I pay tribute to the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. In the two months that I have been a part of the system, as it were, I have seen that he provides extremely vigorous and effective leadership to this very important structure.
	It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. In the debate we had last week on justice and home affairs, I paid tribute to the distinguished report that he, jointly with the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, produced on the subject and which was the background to that debate. That is where I want to start because we had the most extraordinary debate last week from which it was absolutely clear that the Government had been faced with 135, or thereabouts, potential home affairs and justice measures. They looked at them all very carefully and found that not one of them was against the national interest. Some were otiose and some were obsolete, but none of them was harmful. The Government selected the 35 measures which were clearly the most valuable to us, some of which were absolutely vital to the conduct of justice in this country. They decided that we could not avoid being a part of these measures without serious damage to the country and so they decided to opt back into them.
	However, they opted out of the remainder when it was not logical to do so. There was no harm in the remainder, which added up to a positive element for the national interest on the Government’s own assessment. During the debate last week I read out several quotations from the Government’s own documents on the subject. There is no doubt that the whole of the 135 measures contains greater value than simply the 35, and yet the Government decided not to opt back into about 100 of them. There was no logical reason behind that decision. What is more, it has set at risk our getting back into the 35 measures because there are always doubts about these complicated procedures and the Government are incurring additional, unnecessary administrative and other costs through this complicated procedure—not to mention the costs in terms of good will. We are exasperating our partners by this extraordinary and utterly irrational conduct.
	We all know that the reason for it is that the Government had to find a sop to give to their Eurosceptics. The Tory Party is desperately worried about people voting UKIP and wants to draw back into its fold the UKIP voters. We all know what the reasons are—they are pretty squalid party politics—and they have made it impossible for the Government to come to what any rational human being would have seen as the right functional decision to take in this case.
	A situation in this country where the Government cannot take rational decisions on a European subject is a very serious matter. The question arises as to what we do and to whom we look for some kind of dispassionate and thorough cost-benefit analysis of measures that come forward in an EU context so that we can be reasonably confident that we are doing the right job for the British public in the decisions that we take. There is no better or other obvious mechanism than the committee structure we have in this place. We all know that the House of Commons does not engage in a systematic way in these deep and thorough reports on European legislative proposals. We have this extremely valuable instrument, which is made even more valuable and vital by the circumstances I have just described.
	There are other irrationalities. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, has just referred to the decision to opt out of the European prosecutor’s office proposal even before it was made. That is clearly a party political decision. Was it in the interests of the country? I have no idea. I have not looked at the matter in detail or read the report of the sub-committee but, nevertheless, it is quite clear that the Government did not make a rational decision on this matter. Someone ought to tell the British public about the pluses and minuses for the country as a whole of doing that.
	There are other important issues pending. My noble friend Lord Harrison referred to the issue of the European banking union. The Government decided that we should not be part of the European banking union. Is that the right decision? I do not know. I was not on the committee when it reported on that subject. It is clearly a moving feast. It was only a week or two ago that the Commission produced its second directive on the resolution and recovery aspect. It has already produced a directive on the European supervisory mechanism and we hope that it will produce the third element before too long, which is a directive on retail deposit insurance in the European banking union.
	This is not a proposal which is entirely clear or concrete, but we shall have to take a decision on it. It is important that we take the right decision. I have no confidence in the ability of the Government to take a dispassionate decision on this matter, any more than on any of the other issues that I have just talked about. It is important that we look at that.
	We have already had some evidence that there will be increasing costs to our not being part of the banking union. It will be increasingly difficult to protect our interests. We have had witnesses in my time on the committee over the past two months who have said, in the context of other things, that over the medium or long term it is probably inconsistent with our being the largest financial centre in the European Union for us not to be a part of the banking union. All these things have to be taken very seriously.
	Another big issue that it is quite impossible to expect the Government to take a rational view on is the issue of Schengen. At first sight, there must be great advantages to this country joining Schengen—the convenience and amenity for us all in being able to travel without a passport through more than 28 countries, as some non EU members have joined Schengen. The benefit would be particularly great for two very different
	categories of our citizens: the very poor and some probably rather rich. With regard to the very poor, there are a lot of people in this country who have never travelled abroad. Some get to retirement age and they have still never travelled abroad and have never had a passport. They hope to visit Paris, Italy or see the Alps before the end of their lives and they are going to have only a few hundred pounds at most to finance that trip. Therefore, the cost of a passport is quite a significant factor and deterrent, and we should think about people like that.
	At the other end of the income spectrum, there are the international businessmen. These people are incredibly important when it comes to taking business decisions on location—where do you place your corporate headquarters in the EU? There are international businessmen who travel quite a lot and travel outside the EU to places where they need visas. Their passports often have to be with embassies or consulates for the issuing of visas. If they suddenly want to make a trip to Brussels or Frankfurt, they cannot do it. We are one of the very few countries that provide second passports for businessmen who ask for them for that sort of reason. Therefore, that is a significant issue, although perhaps not a vital issue, in terms of business decisions on location and it is something that we all feel strongly about.
	There are other arguments about Schengen. One argument for joining would be that it would involve a lot of savings and would relieve the pressure on the border agency. We know the pressures it has been under and the real problems it has been having. The Government say they are interested in making administrative savings. There would certainly be administrative savings there.
	The big argument on Schengen is that we are losing hundreds of thousands at least but probably millions of tourists a year. For people from the Far East, China and elsewhere who come to Europe, mostly on organised trips, it is simply not worth the money or the time for the travel agency to apply for a second visa. They apply for a Schengen visa and they offer people a European tour which takes them to Paris, Amsterdam, down the Rhine, and then to Florence, Rome, Madrid and Seville, and they do not come to the United Kingdom at all. They do not come because they have to get an extra visa at extra cost. It is quite clear that we are now talking in terms of hundreds of thousands, but it might be millions, of lost visitors to this country every year as a result of that.
	Why do we not join Schengen? On the other side of the argument, some people would say “Good God, you couldn’t possibly do such a thing. You’d have millions of people pouring across the Thracian border into Greece who a day or two later would appear in London, Birmingham and Bradford as illegal immigrants here”. We have to think about that. Is it true that the French, Germans and the Dutch have a much worse problem controlling illegal immigration than we do? Is it true that sophisticated countries such as Switzerland and Norway, which are not members of the EU, have actually chosen to join Schengen when it is so hopeless at actually filtering people through the common external frontier? We need at least to ask that sort of question.
	Some people will say “It’s a principle that you must always control your frontiers. You have only your own citizens controlling the frontier”. That cannot be an absolute principle because we have officials in the Republic of Ireland taking decisions about who should come into the United Kingdom. It is certainly not an absolute principle. Some will say that it is all to do with sovereignty. People get very excited about sovereignty. Before 1914 you could go to Victoria station and buy yourself a ticket to Paris, Berlin, Rome or Madrid and go without a passport. It was not until you got to the Russian frontier, the frontier of the Russian empire, that you had to produce a passport. Whatever the nations of Europe were suffering from before 1914, I do not think that it was an insufficiency of sovereignty.
	All of these arguments need to be probed. Who is going to look at them? Not the Government. If you suggested joining Schengen the Eurosceptics would go berserk. They would go barmy and get hysterical. The Eurosceptic press—the Murdoch press and the Rothermere press—would get completely hysterical as well. There is no chance of a cool, calm, measured and calculated cost-benefit analysis being done by the Government on a subject like that. It is all the more important that we have instruments of the kind we do in the form of committees in this House which are able to give the country some of that element of analysis of these issues.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I join others in warmly congratulating my noble friend Lord Boswell, and indeed his fellow chairs of the committees and all the committee members on their work. I pay tribute to it because it is immensely detailed and clear. I am not myself a member of the EU Committee system, so I hope that that is acceptable. A decade ago I was chairman of Sub-Committee C so I hope that makes me accepted as part of the old alumni of the EU Committee system.
	I will concentrate on a section of the committee’s report on its forward look, on the way in which it is affected by and looks at future policy and scrutiny work—matters already referred to by my noble friend Lord Bowness. I do so against a background of widespread debate and shifting perceptions throughout the European Union itself concerning its procedures and aims. That, of course, is over and above the equally significant changes in the whole pattern and character of international relations, generally in a world that is now almost totally connected, with governmental and non-governmental networks increasingly melding together in a completely novel way. It is important, is it not, that your Lordships should remain well ahead of the game, as indeed we are in so many other fields? One has to realistically say that, whatever else is going to happen in the coming year, the forward-look things will not be as usual; things will be very different all the time.
	I draw evidence for this view of change from the clear and increasing resistance to integration and ever-closer union as guiding EU principles which we have seen from the Netherlands Government, from Italy, and from the obvious German resistance; from the all
	round and outright resistance to more centralisation of power in attempts to repair the euro; and from a clear call for a return to what has been called deliberative intergovernmentalism. I also refer to a remarkable paper issued by the organisation Policy Network, which is a body of impeccable pro-EU credentials chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who is sitting there on the Opposition Front Bench. This paper,
	Coordination in place of integration? Economic governance in a non-federal EU
	, is by Professor Renaud Thillaye, a senior researcher of Policy Network. Its message is simple: we have reached the end of member-state tolerance for one-size-fits-all measures and demands for more central power. Instead, the professor advocates the kind of sensible dialogue which leads much more to practical open-method co-ordination, and therefore to a substantial alteration in the size and nature of the flow of Commission-inspired EU proposals, directives and all the rest with which the committee has to struggle so nobly. However, it is undoubtedly, in its own words, “somewhat burdensome”.
	Professor Thillaye points to the deep deficiencies in the present EU model and its outcomes, such as stagnation in research spending, the waste of skills, increased poverty in southern European countries and the appalling levels of unemployment. He refers to,
	“the sense of a ‘diminished democracy’”,
	and cites the EU scholars who claim that,
	“the EU Single Market and the EMU restrict greatly ‘the capacity of member states to realise self-defined socio-political goals’”.
	Instead, he wants to see an “enriched dialogue” between member states—and, of course, Parliaments—and concludes that:
	“The EU should avoid imposing specific measures from above”.
	My own conclusion from all this for the work of our own committee is that, in addition to being concerned with two specific principles, as the report we are debating today outlines, it should add a third principle, governing both its scrutiny work and its policy work in the future.
	The two principles mentioned in the report, which are familiar to us, of course, are subsidiarity—whether something is to be done at the right level; and proportionality—whether it can be done less onerously. I would like to see a third principle added to the committee’s future work; namely, flexibility—whether something is better done through co-ordination than through centrally conceived law-making regulations and proposals.
	Is it not perfectly clear that in this digital age of instant hyperconnectivity on every issue, the advantages of well focused co-ordination on specific issues, rather than centrally imposed instruments handled by cumbersome hierarchies, are greatly increased and can speed up decision-making instead of delaying it? It is obvious that the committee’s valiantly performed task in holding the Government to account is not at all helped by the endless, enormous stream of Commission proposals, all requiring Explanatory Memoranda from the Government, the quality of which—as we have heard in this debate and as the report confirms—is getting weaker and not stronger, I am afraid.
	Of course, if we are looking at ways of halting or checking some of the less desirable elements of instruments and proposals, there is the yellow-card procedure. However, I think that most people—on all sides, without bias—have agreed that this is an utterly feeble instrument. The requirement of nine member states to make it work is ridiculously high. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is right to urge that we move to a tougher reformed red card procedure, although that would have to be on the basis of far fewer national Parliaments objecting to make it realistic. Of course, that is precisely what some of us argued for in this very House at the time of the Lisbon treaty but it was rejected outright by the Labour Party and indeed—dare I say it?—by the Liberal Democrats.
	Generally, if more ad hoc and e-enabled co-ordination is now to replace EU imposition and integrationist zealotry, a much better dialogue about competences, how things should be done, by whom and in what way is also required between member-state Parliaments and the Commission itself. Sadly, there, too, the Select Committee report speaks of “short and unspecific” responses from the Commission, often coming months late. This just will not do. This is not a state of affairs that those concerned with the welfare of this country or of Europe should accept. The whole balance is wrong and it is leading to increasingly bad results for the peoples of Europe.
	I hope that in this House we will be able to debate in the autumn, as soon as we come back, some reports from the Cabinet Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the balance of competences, to which my noble friend Lord Bowness has referred. I am not sure how much we will learn from them about the burning need for change—although the need is there. Frankly, to judge by the first batch, which has already appeared, we are not going to learn much. They seem disappointingly shallow.
	It is clear that the people drafting these documents—at least, the foreign policy paper that I have read carefully—have not understood that in the age of global connectivity, tasks and powers have changed, patterns and methods of trade and exchange have changed and the ways in which states relate to each other and negotiate have changed. Except for one brief mention, to which I direct your Lordships’ attention, on page 92 of the foreign policy review, there is no sign of awareness that digital networks change everything and that new alliances and networks must urgently be built if we are to prosper and protect our interests in this country, both as good members of the European Union and in relation to our growing interests in the outside world.
	Above all, in the EU context, the old categories of so-called competences have now all been called into question and need unbundling and re-sorting. They were put together in another age. When it comes to actually getting things done, co-ordination between member states looks increasingly preferable to packaged- up EU competences and the capricious judgments of the politicised European Court of Justice. The balance of competences review sees an increasing blur between
	domestic and foreign policy but does not recognise an equally increasing blur between governmental and non-governmental agencies.
	For example, if I may take an excellent report that came from EU Sub-Committee C of this House, there is the structure and role of the European External Action Service. I say excellent; I am not sure that I quite agree with the report’s conclusions on this venture because diplomacy through collective structures was never a great success and the issue now in the digital age is whether it is even necessary. Collective European aims in overseas theatres can now increasingly be achieved by swift co-ordination and alliance for specific tasks rather than by permanent and expensive new bureaucratic structures. The authors of this balance of competences review miss the point about the genius of the digital age: that instant and ad hoc co-ordination can be far more flexible, quicker, more efficient and better tailored to the particular mission in hand than heavy and complicated new treaty-empowered hierarchies of the kind set out in numbing and labyrinthine detail—if anyone wants to follow them—on pages 19 and 23 of the foreign policy review.
	The age of vast, cumbersome, all-embracing and permanent treaties cascading measures from the central bureaucracies, with which our noble committees have had to struggle, is well and truly over—rather like the age of the vast, vulnerable battleships of the past. The age of more agile and practical co-ordination between states, focused on well defined common purposes, far more democratically accountable and closer to the people, is now upon us. Nowadays, Governments can come together and co-ordinate actions at the click of a button and then return to the pursuit of their national and local priorities and needs. This is the true path to democracy in Europe and to bringing Europe closer to its peoples. Communities no longer need to be built on massive central power. That was the doctrine of the previous century.
	I hope that our committee, with all its excellent work and so well led by my noble friend Lord Boswell, will be able to recognise these changes and follow some of these guidelines in its future work. As I said, your Lordships must be ahead of the game in a totally transformed set of international conditions. If we are not, who will be?

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I have had the privilege of serving on four sub-committees of the European Union Select Committee. I have listened with great interest to the current chairmen of six of the EU committees describing the work of the current Session, which is of course what this debate is primarily about, but it would be a mistake to follow their lead in going over the detailed business that these committees have engaged in.
	However, I would like to say at the beginning how very much I have appreciated the leadership of the chairman of the Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, and pay tribute to his fresh thinking about how these committees should work. I also feel it is appropriate to express strong gratitude to the staff who have serviced these committees. They are
	not large in number and they have to work extraordinarily hard to produce the advice and drafts on which we focus.
	The European Union Select Committee is one of the most important functions of the House of Lords. It currently engages, I believe, 74 Members of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, indicated that Sir John Cunliffe stated how much influence we have brought to bear on Brussels and Governments. I disagree very strongly with the previous speaker, my noble friend Lord Howell, in his summation of the way in which the Union ought to operate by way of co-ordination, rather than the open legislative process and the open parliamentary process that we have. I cannot see how what he has recommended is in the least conformable with democratic thinking in a modern conglomeration of 28 nations. How could the detail be co-ordinated effectively so that the disagreements are properly vented and properly answered and consensus is arrived at? It is not a matter of modern technology; it is a matter of openness that we have to embrace if this Union of ours is to enjoy the support that it deserves having kept this continent at peace for an unprecedented length of time.
	I did not mean to divert down that route, but I wanted to indicate my belief that the work of these committees is invaluable in ventilating issues that need to be raised with the Government, the European Commission, the European Parliament and with the Council. There is not much doubt that the work of these committees has made a significant impact. It is unusual for a clash of mighty opposites to occur, such as we had over the opt-out from justice and home affairs. None the less, it ventilated the arguments and enabled many members of the public, who were certainly not as well informed as they might have been, to grasp some of the issues and it got significant coverage in the national press.
	I would like to open a thought that is not entirely about the influence that we can have on government, but rather the influence that we might have with the public. It seems to me that because we are doing studies of great depth and importance, and we are engaging with witnesses who are knowledgeable, engaged and interested, we produce significantly sophisticated reports. However, despite getting our message out to many newspapers and some broadcasts—the report talks about 35 million opportunities for people to understand what is being said in dialogue—I none the less think that we might, within our terms of reference, contemplate how we could gain more public understanding of the work that we do and get the public almost to help to promote some of our studies.
	We are, of course, engaged largely in scrutiny of decision-making in the process of its being decided, but the third term of reference set out in Appendix 1 to the annual report is:
	“To represent the House as appropriate in interparliamentary co-operation within the European Union”.
	That is a very broad mandate and we have certainly used it to engage through COSAC and other bilateral meetings with Governments and parliaments of other countries. But it seems to me that that is not enough. We have only two full meetings of COSAC in the
	course of the year. We do not have as many meetings as we might have with other parliamentary bodies or with our own European parliamentarians—we have three meetings a year in the House of Commons. However, that does not seem to me sufficiently to embrace the public. I should like to speculate and suggest that we might communicate with the public to find out which issues give rise to the greatest concern. A body such as YouGov, chaired by Peter Kellner, the spouse of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, might be able to identify and prioritise the public’s real concerns and consequently we could engage in a debate. We could have a special meeting open to stakeholders who are particularly exercised by what they understand to be the problem with Europe or the way the Union is moving. We could then include these thoughts in our scrutiny and researches, however unfocused they may be, and we could answer them directly and possibly engage in a continuing dialogue.
	The way in which we put out our invitations is very reasonable, but it is nearly always sparked off by a proposal from government or from the European Union. My view is that, if we are to exemplify the effectiveness of our work comprehensibly, we must endeavour to engage more directly with the public.

Lord Tugendhat: My Lords, I speak as another new member of the Select Committee and as the new chairman of Sub-Committee C on External Affairs. I cannot believe my good fortune. I find both roles absolutely fascinating and it gives me great pleasure to join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and to my predecessor as chairman of the sub-committee, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I share, too, the good opinion expressed by a number of noble Lords of the clerks who served the committee. They are few in number and do an outstanding job.
	I shall not go into the subjects dealt with by my two noble friends Lord Maclennan and Lord Howell but shall stick much more, as others have done, to reporting on the work of the sub-committee, most of which was done during the period when the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was chairman. I am not sure that my voice will hold out to the end, so I shall be brief.
	The committee followed up on its earlier inquiry into Operation Atalanta, the CSDP anti-piracy mission in May and June of 2012. The committee has noted the successes of the mission and welcomed the EU’s comprehensive approach to the region. The committee recommended that the EU’s anti-piracy mission should be accompanied by an equal focus on the political process and on supporting security sector reform in Somalia. As part of its interest in Atalanta, the committee visited the operational headquarters in Northwood and noted that the new system for tracking ships in the sea was now in place. The report was debated in Grand Committee in 2013. Since then, the committee has kept a watching brief on the issue.
	The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has already referred to the report on the European External Action Service, so I need say little about that. It was designed to feed
	into the two-year review undertaken by the high representative and has received a comprehensive response from the Government.
	The main conclusions of the report were that the post of the high representative is overloaded, and the committee laid out some of the recommendations that we heard from witnesses to ease this situation. We believe that the EEAS delegations can play a more important and engaged role in forming and delivering EU foreign policy. The committee noted that many smaller member states wanted the delegations to take on consular activities and it recommended that this be an area that the review should consider. However, the Government have put forward some quite substantial objections to that proposition.
	The committee noted, too, that while the EU special representatives play an important role in EU foreign policy, their remuneration rate looks at first glance—and maybe there is more to come—rather high. The report was debated in Grand Committee in June 2013.
	Since I have been chairman, we have had a short inquiry into the EU’s development assistance for drinking-water supply and basic sanitation in sub-Saharan Africa, which goes under the acronym of WASH. This work is based on a critical report from the European Court of Auditors on which the sub-committee had corresponded with the Government and which it wished to pursue further. Our report has been published in the form of a letter to the Commission with a covering note to the Government. It was based on extensive evidence taken from a number of NGOs over a short period. We also spoke to the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and I must say that what we learnt was extremely disappointing. The whole WASH programme casts doubt on the much larger aid programmes, and I hope that the Commission will provide a satisfactory response to the report that we have sent them. We are also sending the report to the relevant committees in the European Parliament, because it is important that it, too, should be seized of this issue.
	Our next big inquiry will be into the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The call for evidence on that has gone out and the formal evidence sessions will begin in the autumn. I hope, too, that we will have a seminar and take the views of a wide range of interested parties.
	Our scrutiny work has also continued at a high level in relation to the Middle East and in particular to Syria, where we have expressed concerns about the security of arms and been worried by the recent decision taken at the Foreign Affairs Council. The sub-committee has received an informal briefing on the extension of the mandates of the EU’s regional and thematic special representatives, which came under scrutiny on 27 June. We have expressed our concern that the process of renewing the budgets and mandates of the EUSRs is too rushed to allow proper parliamentary scrutiny. On the role itself, the committee has expressed concern that the mandates of the EUSRs are not always clearly defined and that EUSRs can sometimes duplicate the work of other international actors on the ground. In particular, we put the mandate of the EUSR for Sudan and South Sudan under scrutiny, as it was not
	clear to us that the political situation and the conditions on the ground justified ending an enhanced EU role to the region.
	We have raised an exhaustive list of scrutiny issues with the Government, covering such subjects as child labour; the EU Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps; the EU Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point; the EU integrated rule of law mission for Iraq; women in the Afghan national police force; the role of the EU at the Food and Agriculture Organization; EU sanctions in Syria, Somalia and Myanmar and EU’s defence instruments; and a protocol amending the agreement on government procurement.
	The committee has also undertaken enhanced scrutiny on EULEX Kosovo, the EU’s rule of law mission in Kosovo and there, too, on the basis of a critical European Court of Auditors report. The committee heard evidence from the Minister for Europe, David Lidington, as well as from the Court of Auditors. In addition to all this, there have been a great number of informal briefings from ambassadors in the countries to which they were accredited, and the committee will continue with that aspect of its in September.
	It has therefore been a very busy programme. I cannot claim credit for very much of it. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and to the previous members of the committee. I very much look forward to carrying the committee’s work forward during the next 12 months.

Lord Judd: My Lords, it is good to follow the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat. He brings to his chairmanship of Sub-Committee C a lifetime in politics and of experience in international affairs, and from across the Floor I have always found him particularly well informed and enlightened. He also brings his considerable experience as a Commissioner of the European Union. He referred to his good fortune; I think that the committee is certainly fortunate to have him in the chair. While I mention the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, I want to join others in paying tribute to the chairmanship of all our committees, and of course to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for his supreme chairmanship, to which he brings not only an ability that is desperately needed but a commitment which is very challenging. I think that we all deeply appreciate that. I want in personal terms to put on record my appreciation as a member of Sub-Committee F of the outstanding leadership and chairmanship that we consistently have in the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I have known him for many years. He, too, brings vast experience of the world and international affairs, which again illustrates just how well served Parliament is by their leadership in committees and by the experience that that leadership brings.
	In thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I would like to say how much I have appreciated in the joint work between Sub-Committees F and E the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. He provides again to the House a real example of integrity and political courage. He speaks for what he believes, and does so not only with passion and emotion, but always on the basis of sound analysis and detailed knowledge. I think that the House should be grateful. I wish my
	long-standing friend the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, well in her chairmanship. She will have a tough challenge following the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, but I know that she will more than live up to it. I have had the good fortune of serving under her on the Joint Committee on Human Rights and know what a very effective chairman she too can be. I am sure that we all wish her well.
	There is another group of people whom we ought to bear in mind and thank in our deliberations. These are the witnesses who provide so much valuable evidence to the committees as the basis for their work. We would not be able to produce our reports unless many people had a put great deal of time into preparing submissions and appearing before the committees, and sharing their insights, experiences and thoughts.
	This brings me to something about which the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, was talking. There is one gigantic challenge with the European Union and our approach to it. To the majority of people in the country, certainly a wide cross-section, the European Union is a remote and closed world. It speaks with great deliberation and experience to itself. It is very well informed about the work with which it deals, but to some extent it has lost contact with those who are dependent upon it and have to respond to its initiatives. That underlies a lot of the public anxiety about it and needs to be challenged. It is something to which in our work we could all make an important contribution.
	When we are assembling lists of witnesses it is important not to fall into the trap of taking evidence just from those who are already informed about the European Community. We must develop the ability to seek out people who are coping with the consequences of European Union policy, or who have a great deal to say about the challenges to which the European Union should be responding, and to hear their views as well. These are people in the front line of the work with which we deal. When we were doing our report on migration in Sub-Committee F, I was struck by some of the witnesses from this front line, dealing with the issues of migration in our society. As we develop our work we should take this very seriously.
	As I understand it, one of the issues with which the Government are concerned in our future relationships with the European Union is that it should be opened up and become more flexible and closer to people. It should be more accountable to the nation and people as a whole. That is a laudable objective. If it is to be fulfilled it is incumbent on the Government to live by example and not just theory. Even after a week, what happened last week was nothing short of a parliamentary disgrace. Here were two committees that had done tremendously detailed work on the implications of opting out and taken evidence from a wide cross-section of witnesses, who had put a great deal of effort and time into what they had to say to the committees. Theses two committees had listened to those in the front line of work in the context of justice, security and the rest. But what happened? Just hours before the debate on the same day, the Government’s response appeared. How is that opening up the matters European Union to the public as a whole? How is that enabling Parliament to do its job as it should? We should all
	have had time to consider in depth the Government’s response and prepare ourselves for a sensible debate in that context.
	We should not hesitate in calling for the Government to do far better on this in the future. At the moment they are not serving the cause of enlightening our country at all by behaving in this way. It is not a totally isolated indication. We must understand what lies behind it and one of the difficulties is that we all know that there is a huge debate going on within the ranks of the coalition. It is not simply between the two formal parties that form the coalition, but even within the ranks of the Conservative Party. I have friends in the Conservative Party with whom it would be very difficult to get a thin sheet of paper regarding their views and mine on Europe. But there are others in the Conservative Party who are very different, committed to a xenophobic, insular and narrow view of where Britain’s future lies, and that is certainly not within the sphere of the European Union, nor even on too many occasions, I fear to say, of international co-operation as a whole.
	That will always be a complication when the Government are getting their case together, but it in no way excuses what happened last week. I have been disturbed at the way in which we are repeatedly entertained to what, if it was not so grimly serious, is a charade of on the one hand senior government voices whipping up the sceptics and the critics of the concept of the European Union, and on the other those who are trying to keep the whole show on the rails. I suspect that that includes the Prime Minister.
	One of the contentious issues in which emotion has obscured reality is the repatriation of criminals who have completed their sentences and are not British subjects. There is too much evidence that some in the senior ranks of government, who should know better, have been whipping up a view that this is somehow the fault of the European Union over the European court. If that were case, it would be a very serious matter. Let us establish how great the problem is. In that context, I put down a Question on 3 June, asking on how many occasions in 2012 the Government were prevented from deporting criminals, who were not United Kingdom citizens, following the completion of their sentences by rulings of the United Kingdom courts citing Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
	I drew the House’s attention to this last week. I have had approaches from Ministers, who have protested how sorry they are that I have not had a reply and that I must of course have one. I hope he will forgive me, as he is not in the House, but because this is so serious I must say that last night I sent an e-mail to the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I pointed out that today was the last day before the recess. A week had gone by and I had still had no reply.
	I was very touched that the noble Lord sits so assiduously by his iPad, because within minutes, I had a reply in which he said that he was shocked that I had not had a reply. I would like to think that that is just innocent incompetence, the machine just not getting a reply together, but I cannot help being concerned lest that reveals something much deeper: that the
	Home Office is in no hurry to answer the question because the facts might not conveniently fit with the rhetoric and the playing to the gallery, to put it bluntly, which has gone on.
	As we consider the future of the European Union, these matters are very grave indeed. We must have a Government displaying to us openly, fairly and straightforwardly the matters central to the issue. That, of course, starts with the Select Committees. I come back to the issue of how totally unsatisfactory—that is putting it in mild language, how totally wrong and insulting—it was to produce a report only hours before the debate took place.
	I want to say what a great privilege I find it to serve on Select Committees and how much I appreciate all those who make that work possible and so effective. A real tribute must go to the clerks and their support staff, who do a fantastic job for us all. I hope that they will get a decent break this summer, although I fear that in the case of Sub-Committees E and F, that will not be as simple as it sounds because we are going to meet during the recess. That shows the commitment to those issues by a large number of people. Again, I give real thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for his terrific leadership in this operation.

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: My Lords, I started to take the reports of the Select Committee seriously 22 years ago. I discovered that I had to. I then lived in Brussels, and it was the habit of the then President of the Commission, Jacques Delors, to read House of Lords reports on Sunday afternoons. When he discovered something that he did not understand or did not like, it was his habit to telephone the permanent representative. I discovered that these conversations went slightly better if I had read the reports beforehand.
	I was therefore delighted when I came here to have a spell on the Select Committee and on three sub-committees, and I now sit on Sub-Committee A under the polymathic chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, whose habit it is to greet witnesses from far and wide in their native tongue, to the consternation of his colleagues and, sometimes, the witnesses. He is an admirable chairman, as he has again displayed today in his speech.
	The standard of the big reports from the Select Committee, which attracted a lot of admiration in Brussels 20 years ago, is undiminished. It is still very high. I think particularly of Bowness-Hannay on the Protocol 36 opt-out. Sub-Committee A’s MiFID II report was good, and I think that its report on the financial transaction tax hit on a point which, at that time, the Government had failed to or did not wish to recognise: that the obnoxious tax would cost us because we would have to collect it even if we did not ourselves go along with it.
	The big reports are very good indeed. However, compared to 20 years ago, I think that the standard of everyday scrutiny of the legislative workload has diminished. It is not as good as it used to be. I think that the principal reason for that—the Minister may disagree with me but he will have heard the feeling of the House from the noble Lords, Lord Boswell, Lord
	Hannay, Lord Bowness, and Lord Judd—is that the Government do not take the process as seriously as they used to. That is my impression too.
	The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, spoke of the perpetual lateness and inadequacy of Explanatory Memoranda. Aficionados will have followed with interest the increasingly irate correspondence in the previous Session between him and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury over the 2012, 2013 and 2014 Budgets, various measures of financial services and banking legislation and the infamous financial transaction tax. The common theme to all those letters was delays, missed deadlines, superficial analysis and unanswered questions. I know that the Treasury suffers from staff cuts and a high turnover—I read the figure of 20% a year turnover in the press the other day. I cannot believe that, but perhaps the Minister will enlighten us. If it is true, it is extremely alarming. The Permanent Secretary to the Treasury came to answer a friendly call from Sub-Committee A and assured us that performance will improve. I hope it will; we wait to see.
	There is a particular reason why delayed Explanatory Memoranda are not just discourteous and in breach of the rules but actually dangerous. I attach some importance to the subsidiarity mechanism. There is a deadline of eight weeks for the use of the yellow card. This morning, in Sub-Committee A, we looked at a proposal which, to my amateur eye, seemed to raise a question of subsidiarity. Whether or not I was right is completely academic, because the proposal was dated very early in June, but it came to the committee this morning, so there is no way in which, if I were right and the committee and the chairman agreed with me, we could use the yellow card, purely because of delays that occurred in London. The Government need to take seriously the rules which are clearly set out in Cabinet Office guidance to the whole of Whitehall, and which used to be enforced quite fiercely by Permanent Secretaries—I can give a personal assurance that that used to be the case.
	Of course, there are also objective reasons why the scrutiny process has got more difficult, why we have to run harder to stay still. We have to catch up with co-decision. The Council is now only the co-equal legislator with the European Parliament. I am not convinced that we in this Parliament or the Government are yet doing enough to try to influence the European Parliament in the European Union interest and the UK interest. The problem is exacerbated by the Conservative Party having left the EPP. It is quite difficult even for distinguished senior Conservative Members of the European Parliament to have as much influence as their predecessors. I pay tribute to Malcolm Harbour, who is a sterling exception to what I just said: he proves that what I am saying is not true in all cases. I pay tribute to Sharon Bowles, but I think that the West Lothian question—let us call it the Westphalian question—will impose itself on the next European Parliament in relation to the chairmanship of committees. Sharon Bowles has put in a sterling performance as chairman of one of the key committees of the European Parliament. She has done extraordinarily well but she has hung on to her job by the skin of her
	teeth because, for a large number of members of her own grouping in Strasbourg, it is difficult to see why, when the United Kingdom has stood aside from fiscal union, banking union and bailouts—from the core business of the Parliament on economic matters—a UK MEP can be the chairman of its key economic committee. I hope that she survives, as she does a great deal of good in the European interest and the UK interest, but I am not sure that she can.
	The European Parliament has also drifted away from national Parliaments a bit. On the multiannual financial framework, I did not see much recognition in the European Parliament, with its insistence that the totals were too low, of the need for painful belt-tightening being felt in member state Parliaments. On the financial transactions tax, I was shocked by some of the arguments advanced in the European Parliament, where the greatest enthusiasm came from those who thought that the financial sector needed to be punished for its crimes in the financial crisis and that throwing grit in the wheels of the capital markets was a good idea, per se. I did not see many arguing that having a great international financial centre inside the EU is a huge EU asset and that the City of London needs to be listened to, and that the FTT therefore needs to be rejected. Those who want to make such arguments in the Parliament could be assisted in making them by people like us, so I have three very modest proposals.
	First, is there perhaps a case for inviting key United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament to participate in certain subject-specific Select Committee meetings, not as witnesses but as country members sitting on our side of the table and talking with us about how best to affect the EU outcome? Secondly, should our chairmen regularly meet the chairs of the European Parliament committees and, thirdly, could we even consider—a daring suggestion—a joint committee of members of the Select Committee of this House with UK Members of the European Parliament? It could perhaps have fluctuating membership, depending on the issue of the day. I am not saying that these meetings should be the kind which happens for form’s sake, with very long agendas, or on a regular basis. I see them as ad hoc, and called to deal with a particular big issue, such as the seven-year financial framework this spring, or the financial transactions tax. If, as I hear, the Select Committee is to consider the role of national Parliaments, I hope that it might consider looking into these suggestions.
	I have one other suggestion, which I also put to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, with a certain degree of trepidation. We have to acknowledge that the performance of our own committee could be improved. We do very well but I think we could do better. The Commission sends to this House, electronically and instantly, every legislative proposal that it puts forward at the moment when it is sent to the Council. They are here before they are read by Sir Jon Cunliffe in Brussels. What do we do with them? We actually do very little because since we joined the European Union, it has been our practice to wait. In those days, we would have waited for the carrier pigeon to arrive with the paper from Brussels. We wait until the Government send us along a copy, telling us what they think of it. Why do we wait for the Government? We could be self-starters
	and form our own view by considering the most contentious proposals—the ones where, say, subsidiarity confers real importance on deadlines and efficiency.
	There would be resource consequences from such a change. It would have costs for this House. But if we cannot get the Government to perform as they used to, it seems to me that we will have no choice but to kick the process off ourselves if we are to retain the standards of scrutiny that we used to have and, I hope, improve them—and we should be improving them.
	The Prime Minister was quite right when he said on 23 January:
	“It is national parliaments, which are, and will remain, the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU”.
	I agree and I think that most Brussels insiders—even some Members of the European Parliament—would agree, although some are clearly a bit puzzled that six months on, he still has not produced any specifics as to what he means and what his improved national parliamentary accountability would look like or how it would work. The Prime Minister talked about it as if it were a matter for treaty change. I really cannot see that at all. We could look again at Articles 10 and 12 of the treaty, which could be expanded, but they are deliberately unspecific—correctly, I think. It would be wrong in principle that an EU treaty should purport to lay down how member state Parliaments should control the business of the European Union. This is entirely a matter for us.
	Our system, which used to be almost as good as the Danish system but now is definitely not, being some way behind, is still better than the system in some other countries. However, before we preach too loudly, “Physician, heal thyself”, the answer to the problem which the Prime Minister rightly describes is at least partly in our own hands. If we were to improve it, by catching up with co-decision and technology, we would improve democratic accountability in this country and be better placed to encourage others to follow our example.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. A lifetime at the diplomatic coalface has given him analysis and perspective that I cannot hope to match, and I listened with great interest to his suggestions.
	I am just an ordinary member, now of Sub-Committee E and previously of Sub-Committee F. This has given me the opportunity to study in detail four very different chairmen: my noble friends Lord Jopling and Lord Bowness, the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, and, previously, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Each has been extremely effective and has been able to corral their potentially recalcitrant flocks with humour and good sense. It has been a pleasure to serve under them all. The other group to whom I add my thanks are the clerks, who do such terrific preparatory work and manage to turn the meanderings of the committees
	into a coherent whole. In my view, the country and the House owe a great debt of gratitude to both these groups.
	As a member of Sub-Committee E, I served on the joint Select Committee considering the opt-out decision but I am not proposing to cover that issue now. The House has debated it at length and I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Hannay, that the delivery of the Government’s response was unacceptably late. However, we have had a good chew of that and candidly, if I am honest, I am suffering a bit from opt-out or opt-in fatigue, at least for the time being. We will no doubt return to that issue in the autumn.
	Instead, I will focus first on another of Sub-Committee E’s reports: that on The Fight against Fraud on the EU’s Finances. The evidence that the sub-committee received indicated that the official figure of fraud—which, as we have been told, was £404 million—was a woeful underestimate and that the real figure could be as much as 12 times higher: around £5 billion.
	We also received evidence that OLAF, the European agency charged with fighting fraud, did not always receive the full-hearted national co-operation that it deserved. In these circumstances, the Government’s participation in our inquiry, or perhaps I should say their non-participation, is disappointing. Further, the Government’s response to the sub-committee’s report, received only recently, did not seek to rebut the sub-committee’s suggestion that EU fraud could be as high as £5 billion, merely recording, as the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, said, that it was not a figure that they recognised. This smacks of a good deal of complacency. Fraud is theft—theft from the taxpayer, whose interests every Government in the EU ought to be protecting. Moreover, fraud, if not investigated and prosecuted with vigour, has an unhappy habit of spreading. I hope for a more vigorous approach by the Government on this topic in future.

Lord Davies of Stamford: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he agree that, given the importance of fraud—I think that the whole House will be with him on everything that he said on that—it might have been a good idea if the Government had decided to join in with the initiative of setting up a European prosecutor’s office with a specific remit of pursuing fraud cases in the EU?

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: As always, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has a seductive tone to his voice, but of course that is a completely different issue. We are trying to ensure that OLAF, which is the European fraud investigative committee, operates effectively. That is what we need to concentrate on first rather than, as my noble friend Lord Howell has said, superimposing yet another body that will be out of touch with the reality on the ground.
	I shall focus the rest of my remarks on Chapter 10, the future look. I have written to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, to give him some advance warning of what I wish to raise and what I would like the EU Committee to look at in future: the implications for this country of the continued free movement of labour within the EU—one of the pillars, as the noble Lord, Lord
	Hannay, firmly pointed out, on which the whole EU structure rests. However, I fear that the UK, uniquely, is already facing some strains from this free movement, strains that I fear will almost certainly become more severe and increase over the next 10 to 20 years.
	A couple of figures may help to illustrate the point. England, not the United Kingdom, has now overtaken the Netherlands as Europe’s most densely populated country, with some 400 people per square kilometre. By comparison, France has 125 people per square kilometre, which is one-third or one-quarter as densely populated, and Germany has 260 per square kilometre—about two-thirds as populated. That is today, but over the next 15 years to 2027, if you believe the mid-projection by the Office for National Statistics, the UK’s population—here I am talking about the UK, not England—will increase by 7 million people, from 63 million today to 70 million then. What does this mean in comparable statistics? Last year, the UK’s population grew by just short of 1,100 people per day—a small village every week; a parliamentary constituency every three months or so. By contrast, Italy’s, France’s and Germany’s populations are falling, and on present projections the UK will overtake Germany to become the most populous country in Europe by the early 2030s.
	Should we worry about this? Before answering that question, one needs to make it clear that race, colour and creed play no part in the debate. Indeed the social strains, if social strains there be, are likely to be felt most harshly in the minority communities. So should we worry? Physically, we can certainly fit the people in. Bangladesh has 1,400 people per square kilometre compared to England’s 400. However, it will be up to wiser minds than mine as to whether we wish to reproduce Bangladeshi living conditions in the UK.
	Concerns revolve around two specific issues. First, there is the impact on our environment—the pressure on the green belt around our cities, the impact on our countryside, especially in the south-east, and so forth. These are important to me but are not the critical issues. For me, the critical issue is the potential crowding out of our native-born population—please note that I say, and I mean, “native-born”; that is not another word for white but, rather, means anyone and everyone who was born here—and the consequences of that crowding-out on our social structure. If the default option for British industry and commerce is to call for more immigration as opposed to upskilling our own population, we run the risk of creating a sullen, disconnected, unemployed and in due course no doubt unemployable underclass—an underclass that, in the minority communities, may well find extremist activities attractive. That is not good for us as a country or as taxpayers.
	I shall give the House a practical example. I have a house on the Shropshire/Herefordshire border. As I speak here today, there are about 4,000 people from eastern Europe picking fruit. They are here legally, they behave well, they work hard and at the end of the season all, or at least most, of them will go home. However, there are unemployed locals in Herefordshire and south Shropshire. Talk to the fruit farmers and they will tell you that the locals will not work hard
	enough, are not reliable and turn up once and do not come again. Talk to the locals and they will tell you that they cannot get the farmers to recruit them because they prefer to recruit in bulk from eastern Europe in the hundreds. Where does the truth lie? I have no idea, but there is an issue here that at some point we have to address.
	An argument often advanced for increasing immigration is the need to provide additional people to look after, and compensate for, our ageing population. This has extremely superficial attractions but it ignores the inexorable laws of ageing and compound interest. Today’s increased number of young people leads inevitably to tomorrow’s increased number of old people, who will in turn require still further increases of young people to compensate. Indeed, it has been calculated that if we wish to keep the same number of workers to pensioners as at present—it is about 3.5 to 1—we will already need an extra 27 million more workers by 2050: a 40% increase in our population.
	To conclude, while free movement of labour within the EU is only part of the challenge, it is an important part and one which an EU committee will be uniquely well placed to address because it can do so in the non-partisan, equable, evidence-based way at which it excels and which this subject, above all, demands. I take a fairly hard-nosed approach to this country’s relationship with the EU but I do not doubt that at root it has been of great benefit to the United Kingdom. The 900,000 or so graves in France and Belgium are mute witnesses to that fact. However, outside the M25 in particular, the apparently inexorable rise in our population is causing concern. We need to reassure any concerned people that Parliament is aware of those concerns and prepared to investigate them fully, no matter how sensitive they may be.
	Martin Wolf, the FT economics commentator, wrote:
	“Society cannot function without a majority willing to play by the rules, without individuals demonstrating on a minute-by-minute basis their trustworthiness, reliability, courtesy and self-reliance”.
	We need to ensure that we do not stretch these qualities to breaking point.

Lord Liddle: My Lords, I join the chorus of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and to the formidable array of committee chairs and retired chairs who have spoken. I thank them for their hard work, and for the rigour and objectivity of that work, which makes a tremendous contribution to the European debate in Britain.
	I want to make three points in a brief speech. First, this work is essential and therefore I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that there should be no further cutbacks to it in this House. Secondly, it can work properly only if all parts of the Government take it seriously. I have a lot of sympathy with the strictures on the Treasury that I have heard from various quarters in this debate. When I worked in 10 Downing Street the Treasury would not even tell No. 10 what was going on. That was not so much because of the personalities at the top but rather because of an institutional arrogance: they believe they are guardians of the state unaccountable to anyone else. This attitude has to change.
	If I may make an aside, I am somewhat alarmed by the fact that at present the two key posts in the management of European business—in the European Secretariat and at UKRep in Brussels—are held by people from the Treasury. I congratulate Sir Jon Cunliffe, who is a very able man, on his appointment as Deputy Governor of the Bank of England but I hope this Treasury grip will not be maintained.
	The third point is about the future work of the committee. Here I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell—and not just because of the very nice compliment that he paid my think tank—that the committee could take a more ambitious view of its role beyond scrutiny. We have to recognise that a big debate has been started about Britain’s future in the European Union and the committee can make a very valuable contribution to it, particularly in two areas where it is extremely well, if not uniquely well, qualified. One is the question of competences and the whole debate about subsidiarity and proportionality. The second is the debate about the need for an enhanced role for national parliaments.
	A good starting point would be the Government’s balance of competences review. My fears about this have been somewhat allayed by the tone of the first reports, as they show an objectivity of approach. There has certainly been a bit of Lib Dem influence there, which is possibly more effective in this area than on many coalition policies. I also think there is a sense in parts of the Conservative Party that it is simply not going to follow the kind of bar-room prejudices of Nigel Farage in setting its future European agenda—at least, I hope so. I detect—I would like to know what the Minister says about this—that the Government are shifting from what started off as a Conservative manifesto commitment to the repatriation of powers to a sensible debate about the need for multilateral reform of the way the European Union exercises its competences. If that is the case, it would be quite an important shift, which on this side of the House we would very strongly support. The committee could help that debate along, particularly if it carried out a detailed examination of how there can be better enforcement of subsidiarity and proportionality and what role national Parliaments can play.
	I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is right to say that the work of the committee could be even better. Certainly, the role of national parliaments in the system could be strengthened without treaty change. We have to look, at a much earlier stage in the policy-making process than at present, at how national parliaments hold Ministers to account. We should seek to beef up the role of COSAC—the body that brings together the parliaments in Brussels—so that the yellow card procedure is used more effectively. Of course, there are all sorts of other ways in which the role of national parliaments could be strengthened through future treaty change, but I suspect that that is some way away.
	Therefore, the Select Committee does excellent work, but it could do even more if it made a contribution to this crucial debate about reform of the European Union, and in that way helped us to remain effective members.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I am conscious that I now stand between noble Lords and what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, called their buckets and spades, although in my case it is my punnet and hoe. I failed to pick rather too many of our raspberries and a large quantity of our blackcurrants last weekend, so I look forward to getting back as soon as possible to provide my wife with them to process.
	I declare an interest as a former member of the House of Lords EU Committee and a former chair of one of one of its sub-committees. I had thought that perhaps when I step down from government, it would be very pleasant to sit on the committee again. However, what I have heard today suggests that it is all extremely hard work, which is the last thing my wife would want me to do when I have finished working absurdly hard in government. We appreciate how much extremely valuable work the Lords EU Committee and its sub-committees do. The Government certainly have no intention to reduce the number of sub-committees. I remind Members that the number of sub-committees and the allocation of committee resources in this House is a matter for this House and its authorities, not for the Government.
	The committee will have seen the Government’s written response to this report and the Minister for Europe welcomed it.

Lord Davies of Stamford: On the very important point of the allocation of resources to permit the committees to do their work, we have, of course, recently been subject to reductions in our travel budget. That is bizarre, because the work requires us to keep in close touch with our continental partners and in particular with the institutions in Brussels. Do the Government have a view on the matter of the resources that should be allocated or the reduction in resources that is being imposed on the committees here?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I am simply not briefed on that. However, I can assure the noble Lord that as a Minister I travel with Ryanair and easyJet to various places around the outer fringes of the European Union. We also do our best to economise where we can. I remind the noble Lord that this is the leanest Government that Britain has had for many years because we have cut the government car pool very substantially—we have to walk everywhere.
	This is a very timely debate. I recall our previous debate on the annual report, which took place rather later than this one, and in the Moses Room, although we are now here in the Chamber. I also recall it because the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, criticised me very sharply on that occasion for not having read every single report that the committee had produced in the previous year. I can assure her that I have read at least the summary of every report that the committee has produced this year.
	There are, of course, many examples of the way in which the committee has fed into the Brussels process and the work of other Governments, as well into the debate within Britain. We are concerned at the criticisms
	that the committee has made of the untimely provision of Explanatory Memoranda, and in particular of the role of the Treasury. We very much take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said about the importance of timeliness in terms of subsidiarity. I will take all the points back, and we will discuss them in the Cabinet Office, the Foreign Office and various parliamentary branches of the relevant departments, to make sure that they are fully taken on board. I am an enthusiast for the development of the use of the yellow card mechanism. We have to make sure that we are given all the resources we can manage so that we will be able to use that to its best ability.
	I have been heavily involved in the balance of competences review for six months, about which various comments have been made. Perhaps I may stress that those reports were not intended to have policy recommendations at the end. They were intended very much to feed into a better informed debate in the United Kingdom. I hope that the first six reports have done so. I look forward—although perhaps not entirely—to three more rounds of very careful assimilation of a large amount of evidence presented into another collection of reports.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that the balance of competences exercise is very much in parallel to other aspects of what is going on in Government. We have welcomed his committee’s report on the justice and home affairs opt-out. The balance of competences exercise is proceeding in parallel with a whole range of other negotiations and the order of reports was drawn up some time ago, with other dimensions in mind.
	We are attempting, both within the balance of competences exercise and in the work of this and other committees, to provide space for a reasoned debate within the European Union about our interaction with the European Union. We all recognise that over the next nine to 12 months that debate may be constricted in some ways as we move towards the next European elections. We are also conscious, particularly so over the past week, that the press is not always favourable to a reasoned debate. The Leveson report remarked that in press coverage of the European Union—as with press comment on women, minorities and Muslims—its attitude that it is quite acceptable to invent stories without any source whatever.
	I was very struck to see this story in the Mail the other day:
	“Revealed: The shadowy lobbyists waging war to keep Britain in Europe”,
	I read it with great interest, only to discover that it was actually talking about British Influence, which is an entirely public body. I think that the Mail had lifted this story from a Eurosceptic blog, which said that British Influence was a deeply dangerous organisation funded by the secretive Bilderberg Group. Oddly enough, the Mail did not include that bit.
	I was also quite worried by the article by Peter Oborne in the Telegraph last week, saying that:
	“The 1975 referendum was a fair poll in the same sense that the elections due to be held in Zimbabwe next Wednesday will be fair … The sense has lingered that we were hustled, against our will, by an anti-democratic elite, into an organisation whose true aims and nature were hidden from us until too late”.
	The BBC, of course, was playing a role in the deceitful agenda.
	On Saturday, the Telegraph’s Brussels correspondent, Bruno Waterfield, told us that,
	“the European Union is planning to ‘own and operate’ spy drones, surveillance satellites and aircraft”,
	under the control of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, in,
	“a major move towards creating an independent EU military body with its own equipment and operations”.
	I was therefore very pleased to receive this morning an invitation from King’s College London to a debate in October on how to ensure that we have impartial reporting on the European Union, at which Bruno Waterfield will be one of the speakers.
	I say this partly to demonstrate that getting reasoned debate based on evidence about Britain’s involvement in the European Union is not easy and that this committee plays an immensely valuable role in helping to widen that debate. I hope that noble Lords have read the balance of competences review papers so far and I hope that they feel that they have drawn in evidence-based policy with which perhaps to counter the emotion-based policy, the prejudice-based policy and the conspiracy-oriented allegations which so often cloud out rational debate in Britain. All parties must contribute to this effort.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that I very much look forward to hearing a speech from the Labour leadership comparable to the speech made by the Prime Minister in January. The leader of my party, the Deputy Prime Minister, will make a major speech on the European Union in October. I very much hope that we will hear a constructive Labour contribution to an EU reform agenda that keeps Britain in the European Union. This is what the Prime Minister was talking about, and I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that that is what the coalition Government are pursuing, rather than unilateral repatriation intended to lead to an exit, which is what the Telegraph, the Mail and a number of others on the fringes of conventional politics very much want us to pursue.
	I turn to various issues that were raised in the debate. The sub-committee on foreign affairs produced a very valuable report on common security and defence policy. I have noted that on scrutiny we have shifted very often from major reports to follow-on reports and continued scrutiny. As we approach the December European Council, which will have European defence very much on its agenda, I trust that the sub-committee will continue to monitor the way in which the British Government and others approach this. As everyone knows, there is a tension between those who are interested in institution building and others who are interested in practical conflict prevention and conflict resolution under that dossier.
	Similarly, on banking union, it would be immensely valuable if the sub-committee responsible for that continues to monitor the ongoing debate. Having read its report and various other—mainly German—documents, I think that I understand the various different definitions of banking union that are floating around. However, because there are so many different definitions of banking union—with maximum, minimum
	et cetera—clearly we need to contribute to the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and others rightly said, we need to think also about where in the debate the interests of Britain and of Britain’s financial centres are at stake.
	On the workload of the European Court of Justice, I take on board what has been said. We have now moved on the question of—

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: Advocates-General.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Advocates-General. The question of more judges is now about to come up.
	On the question of students and migration, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. However, I will say now that the government line is that students who stay here for three to four years are not necessarily temporary visitors. That is one reason why the question of what role they play in the statistics is important. As the father of a student who went to the United States seven years ago and who I hope will come back to the United Kingdom one day, I am very conscious of the tensions.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I would like to save the Minister from sending an unnecessary letter in the Recess. This is not about statistics. I have said it an awful lot of times. Others, including the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, in the debate that he initiated, also said it. It is about government policy and the impact of that policy on immigration and on our higher education sector. That was what the senior member of his party who is a member of the Cabinet referred to. I ask him to send me a letter not about statistics but about how the Government will give effect to the international education strategy that was put out by David Willetts yesterday and which, I am afraid, is not totally consistent with the Government’s immigration policy.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I guarantee that I will look at the strategy of the Minister for higher education and will consult further.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, asked about a Eurojust opt-in. The Government are now consulting on the new Eurojust proposal, which was published on 17 July as part of a package, alongside a proposal for a European public prosecutor’s office. We have been clear that the UK will not participate in the establishment of a European public prosecutor’s office, so we are now considering how to respond to that.
	One thing that I hope the committee will focus on in the coming year is the area of European data protection. This applies to domestic legislation in Britain—we may have a data-sharing Bill in the next Session—and applies also at European level. When it comes to negotiation with the United States, data protection and data-sharing are becoming—as we all know and see from the German elections—a highly sensitive area in which the expertise and expert contribution of the Lords European Union Committee could be extremely valuable. A number of noble Lords have talked about democratic accountability—

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but I have to tell the noble Lord that the Select Committee did, in fact, recommend that the Government opt in to the data protection directive currently under negotiation in Brussels. Mirabile dictum, the Government did opt in.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the final shape of the data protection directive is by no means clear. We are a very long way from a final text. I merely wish to insist that it needs to be kept very well under review.
	I move on to democratic accountability. The role of national parliaments and closer co-operation among national parliaments, of the sort that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others talked about, is very much a direction in which we should be moving. The yellow card mechanism is developing. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that it is not a workable mechanism. Closer co-operation between national parliaments; better use of the Brussels office, which we have and share with others; rapid provision of Explanatory Memorandums; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, also said, closer co-operation with British members of the European Parliament should help us demonstrate to our publics that we are actively engaged in scrutinising the necessary involvement of the United Kingdom in a whole range of regulations at the European level, but also to make sure that we are feeding into the Brussels bubble the active concerns about subsidiarity that we and many other publics have.
	This has been a very wide debate, and I simply want to end by pointing out that Her Majesty’s Government are committed to staying within a reformed European Union. We are working with others to promote that agenda. I was very pleased yesterday to read from the Foreign Office a number of telegrams about the positive reaction of other member Governments to the first balance of competences papers. We are already talking to a number of other Governments about how we might share an agenda for reform. That, I hope, has the support of all members of party and non-party groups in this House. I very much look forward to the further valuable contributions that the European Union Committee of this House will continue to make. I will do my utmost within government to ensure that members of the Government—even the Treasury—co-operate as fully and as promptly as possible with the continuing of the committee.

Lord Boswell of Aynho: My Lords, given my position as the concluding speaker in the debate, I very much hope that it will not be a matter of the theme, “Apres moi le deluge”. We are all about to go on our holidays and I do not intend to prolong the agony. However, I would like to say first how much I appreciate the contribution of all those who have participated in the debate and the Minister’s response. I am particularly grateful to those who have expressed very generous—even if unmerited—remarks to me personally. Before the cynics get at it, perhaps I should say, by no prior arrangement, that I would like in turn to express my gratitude to all the sub-committee chairs and former members of our committee—including the Minister,
	as he reminded us—who have participated in this debate. It has shown the depth of expertise that the House can deploy and, in what I hope will be a golden summer of England cricket, that we can bat all the way down the order with great success.
	If I were to select a single word to encapsulate the nature of our discussion, and probably the way in which our committees work, it would be workmanlike—but not, I hope, pedestrian. We do a proper job of work. We do it seriously but we try to have regard to the wider context as we do it. In a way, that has been brought out by the debate, because we have shown a constant tension between concern about procedural issues and substantive issues. Perhaps I may select in particular the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who felt strongly about both. I think we all understand that there is a European people out there, not all of whom are very happy with the course of events and who feel tensions about how the system is not necessarily expressing their views as it should.
	There is also concern as to whether we are having the right dialogue with Her Majesty’s Government and the right degree of compliance with the scrutiny reserves and the other obligations that they have undertaken. I remind the House that it is entirely for the Government to meet their obligations. We will do our best to help and we do not wish to be unreasonable. It really is not sufficiently good enough, on their behalf, to say, “Well, we did our best”, when clearly in certain cases that has not happened. We will not go away from that issue, nor should we do so.
	However, I would reflect that there is a danger—we see this even in some of the material that we get, for example, from the European Parliament commenting on our involvement in European affairs—that because we are a documents-heavy and scrutiny-intense activity, there is a feeling that somehow that is all that we do. Of course it is not the case that everything is done formally by the process of scrutiny, holding things under scrutiny or even grumbling about the conduct of Her Majesty’s Government. There is a much more numinous process of policy formulation and discussion.
	Perhaps I may come to points of substance. First, there is a certain regret in my heart that no explicitly Eurosceptic contribution has been made today. As I have said on previous occasions, any discussion of European policy matters is not a binary one where everyone immediately agrees or disagrees to the suggestion you have made after your detailed inquiry. It is very much more a process of evolving. One of our important roles, which I think has been touched on, involves our ability to go further back in the decision-making process and to respond as the Commission has a bright idea or wishes to develop themes, and not simply to wait until the last minute when we can say, “We are not happy with this as it’s turned out”, “It raises a subsidiarity issue”, or whatever.
	Another point raised—for which we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, as we are for others—is that it is now a very complex process. As for his comments on the contribution of the electronic dialogue, although I can e-mail my colleagues in COSAC, for example, which is the sort of thing we should be doing more than we do, that might not be the answer
	to every situation. We do not simply have a central authoritarian system to which we have to respond rather late in the day, we also need to be involved in a much more networked policy formulation and discussion.
	In that context, yes, of course we want our dialogue, and yes, we are not complacent about having got it perfectly right—I say in response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard—just because Jacques Delors, the European Commission or the current Commissioners have our reports on their shelves. We can always do better. I am sensitive also to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, about migration issues. Indeed, I hope that the House will not land everything with even the remotest relevance to Europe on our shores. However, we do have a dialogue. Two of our sub-committees have looked at some of the issues and we have corresponded about them. We are open to doing more in this respect just as we are open to doing more on procedural issues.
	I hope that I can assure your Lordships’ House that we do our best to do an objective job. We do not have closed minds about how it should work. We do some things that do not always appear even in the tomes of annual reports. In the context of our national parliamentary inquiry, I have written well over 100 letters to various people, including national parliaments and ambassadors in London and otherwise, to alert them to what we are doing and to invite them actively to participate. We will take any part in the dialogue that they are prepared to have with us.
	In conclusion, I should like to express my gratitude for the way in which our report has been received and to emphasise that, whatever we do in the future, we will be guarded by the lodestars of quality and objectivity. We will make no compromises about that.
	Motion agreed.

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Code of Practice for Surveillance Camera Systems and Specification of Relevant Authorities) Order 2013
	 — 
	Motion to Approve

Moved By Baroness Stowell of Beeston
	That the draft orders laid before the House on 10 June be approved.
	Relevant documents: 4thReport from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, considered in Grand Committee on 17 July.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend on the Order Paper. Although this Motion was debated extensively in Grand Committee on 7 July, the noble Baroness, Lady Basildon, has given notice that
	she wishes to debate this order again today, so it may be helpful if I briefly remind the House of the order’s intention.
	This is a code which will for the first time place a regulatory framework around the deployment and use of CCTVs. It will also for the first time ensure that the public have a say in the deployment of these cameras. Through the 12 guiding principles encapsulated in the code, what we are putting in place will ensure that the rights of the public are balanced against the need for CCTV cameras.
	This is not about increasing or decreasing the number of CCTV cameras in use. It is about ensuring that the police, local authorities and other designated authorities consider deploying CCTV cameras only where they have identified a pressing need; that the public are consulted in those considerations; and that the purpose of the use of CCTVs is set out clearly for the public. The purpose of CCTVs is to assist in the prevention, detection and conviction of crime, and the purpose of the code is also to drive greater consistency and quality of the images taken from those cameras to ensure that their use by the police is more efficient and effective in cutting crime. I beg to move.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. I should point out that I am only “Lady Basildon” on Twitter; it is usually Smith, but I am pleased to have the Minister as a follower on Twitter. There are two orders before us today, but she has rightly addressed the one that I raised concerns about. We raised and discussed the other one, about the national security determinations relating to DNA and biometric information, in Committee.
	The Minister is quite right that the order which I am speaking about, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Code of Practice for Surveillance Camera Systems and Specification of Relevant Authorities) Order 2013, was debated in Committee. I am sorry—I say this with regret and not as a criticism—that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, is not here today; not because we are not pleased to see the noble Baroness, but because we discussed this in Committee. I said to him on 7 July that if I remained dissatisfied with the answers to our queries and concerns, then we would look to debate it on the Floor of the House. The noble Lord helpfully wrote to me, seeking to address those concerns, but some remain, which is why we are debating this again today,
	As pleased as we are to see the noble Baroness, we therefore regret that the noble Lord is not able to be here today. However, no doubt the noble Baroness will have read the debate, will have seen the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, sent me, and will be aware of the concerns that I raised. She sought to air them today, but I regret that in her short comments she was unable to do so. I do not want to repeat the Committee debate—that would be unwelcome at this time on the last day of term—but I will summarise the concerns and explain why we remain concerned.
	I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give further information and might seek to address some of the points that have been raised and not fully answered.
	The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee made the point that the Government needed to justify how the benefits offset additional bureaucracy, and the wider application of the code. Those two issues stand together. There is significant increased bureaucracy and cost for local authorities and the police, as I outlined previously. This is addressed in the impact assessment. In Committee and in his letter to me, the noble Lord addressed this. He said in his letter that the Local Government Association agreed that it was difficult to assess the costs involved. He then added that it was around £1.6 million each and every year, although given the information on the impact assessment, this is a conservative estimate and could be much higher. The impact assessment suggests that is the best estimate and that it could be as high as £3 million each and every year, and that the best estimate for the one-off transition costs is over £14 million and could be as high as £29 million.
	In his letter the noble Lord also stated that the best estimate values had been shared between 350 local authorities and 46 police authorities. However, as both the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the impact assessment make clear, the impact assessment assumes that,
	“many of the local authorities and police forces … are already operating broadly within its—
	that is, the code’s—
	“guiding principles where they relate to existing obligations. Thus the additional burdens and bureaucracy are likely to fall where systems and the accountability for decision-making need to be strengthened to protect the public”.
	That implies to me that the conservative estimate of £1.6 million annually and the additional £14 million transition costs are not being shared across all local authorities and police forces because when the costs in the impact assessment were estimated it was done on the basis that many—I think it was 25% to 50%—would not incur any additional costs.
	A further difficulty which was raised in Committee but has not been addressed is that this order applies only to the public and not the private sector. The Explanatory Memorandum quotes the policy background and refers to the advantages of CCTV. It also refers to the disadvantages, including,
	“the extent to which private lives are exposed to ever greater scrutiny by other individuals, organisations or the State, leading in some instances to a potential exposure to criminality, or more generally, to an erosion of personal privacy”.
	The order is therefore being promoted as a protection of civil liberties against the power of individuals, organisations and the state. However, it does not apply to individuals, organisations and the state; it applies only to the state and public institutions. So if these guidelines are so essential to protect civil liberties, why does the policy giving effect to the Government’s principles outlined so boldly in the Explanatory Memorandum only apply to the public sector? Can the noble Baroness tell me what percentage of CCTV cameras the order covers? I know that previously the Minister said that this was because they were in a public place, but so are shopping centres; shop and
	office cameras look onto the street. Do the same principles apply to those CCTV cameras as to the ones that police and local authorities use? If I am to believe what I see on “Law and Order UK” and other detective programmes on TV, the police often ask for access to the information on these private CCTV cameras to collate evidence of criminal activities. So, in many cases, the use of those cameras and the people they film are identical.
	The Government have made much of leaner, slimmer government and fewer regulations—they want to cut quangos—and yet here we have not only a new commissioner but significant additional regulations for local government and the police. I understood that the Government policy was that for each new regulation that was brought in, two would be jettisoned as the overall burden, as the Government call it, of regulation was reduced. I think that is a poor way to make policy. There are serious issues around regulation; it is not a numbers game. In his comments to the Committee, the Minister said that, in terms of bureaucracy and regulations, the rule of “one in and two out” does not apply to the public sector, only to business. That is a new one on me. I had not realised that the Government’s commitment to reducing bureaucracy, as they call it, was qualified. Given that this involves taxpayers’ and council taxpayers’ money, can the Minister tell me why the Government exclude the public sector in this regard?
	A second point I have raised before and on which I am still not clear—perhaps the noble Baroness can help me—is that when I raised the issue of compliance with the principles the Minister’s response was that the legislation to establish the new Surveillance Camera Commissioner limited the commissioner’s role to encouraging compliance and that the legislation provided no enforcement powers even though it was the Government’s legislation. At an annual cost of £250,000, the Government are therefore setting up a commissioner to encourage local authorities and the police to comply with the new regulations, which will not apply to the private sector. However, although there is a statutory duty, there is no way that this commissioner, at a cost of £250,000—a quarter of a million—can enforce the regulations.
	When I raised this in Grand Committee, the Minister sought to give me some assurances, but his answers gave me more cause for concern. To my question about enforcement he responded:
	“Local authorities and the police will be under a duty to have regard to the code when exercising their functions…When a local authority or police force fails to do so, it will be vulnerable to judicial review for a breach of that statutory duty. The possibility of being subject to such a legal challenge will incentivise local authorities and the police to adhere to that statutory duty”.—[Official Report, 17/7/13; col. GC293.]
	There are 12 guiding principles within the code, seven of which are considered not to have any cost. Each one of those places an additional bureaucratic obligation on the police and local authority. Therefore, non-compliance with any of those 12 criteria or principles opens up the possibility of a judicial review, and judicial reviews do not come cheap. This statutory instrument allows for any public sector CCTV installation
	to be subject to a judicial review. I am not sure if the noble Baroness is aware of this, but local authorities are understandably becoming more risk-averse whenever there is a possibility of legal action or judicial review because they fear the costs. Experience tells us that the threat of a judicial review can lead local authorities to avoid decisions that can lead to a JR, even when they are likely to win, just because of the huge costs that are involved.
	The Government themselves recognise this problem. They say they want to reduce the number of judicial reviews. The Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, claimed that:
	“The system is becoming mired in large numbers of applications, many of which are weak or ill-founded, and they are taking up large amounts of judicial time, costing the court system money and can be hugely frustrating for the bodies involved in them”.
	The Government’s policy is to reduce the number of judicial reviews, but the Home Office policy is to give 12 grounds on which any CCTV application can be challenged by judicial review. I am really not comfortable with the threat of a JR being the only effective means of enforcement. I fear that the policy may well have the opposite effect to that which the Government intend by reducing the number of CCTV cameras, as councils seek to avoid risk.
	We come back to the basic question that was asked in Committee, and I am still not clear on the answer: is this necessary? The impact assessment states that many of these bodies—local authorities and police—are already employing and using those guiding principles. The point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, who is in his place today, when he said in Committee that,
	“many of the issues that do matter in this are covered by the Data Protection Act, for instance accurate databases and things like that. So they are already covered elsewhere. Will having an extra commissioner really make a difference?”.—[ Official Report , 17/7/13; col. GC286.]
	The noble Lord’s letter to me also refers to the Information Commissioner’s role in CCTV. There is a lack of clarity here. The judicial review only refers to the 12 principles; if there is a role for the Information Commissioner and for judicial review, which could be from either the camera commissioner or a member of the public, could there be a case where there are two actions against the local authority or the police, one via judicial review and one via the Information Commissioner?
	I am certainly not against oversight. We support oversight, but I come back to the first point I made, and the point made by ourselves and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, in Committee, and by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee: do the benefits justify the costs, or are there other ways in which this can be achieved?
	I urge the noble Baroness to take this back and please think again. I am sure that we all want to avoid unnecessary burdens and unintended consequences, but I fear that this order could achieve both.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. My apologies for using her Twitter moniker in the Chamber; I will avoid doing that again.
	During the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Act, Parliament debated and agreed the function of the commissioner and the scope and nature of the CCTV code of practice in so far as it applies only to the police, local authorities and other designated bodies. As we made clear then, the Government believe that the CCTV code will ensure that CCTV is deployed and used transparently, proportionately, and effectively. We want the police and local authorities to use CCTV to help cut crime. During our consultation, we received widespread support for it: 80% of respondents supported it. The Information Commissioner was also positive in his response, as was ACPO.
	It might be worth me reading out a brief quote from ACPO’s response to the consultation on this code. ACPO said that the code,
	“will help to bring in a consistent approach to dealing with the use of surveillance cameras. The use of twelve guiding principles sets out the Code in a straightforward way, which can be easily understood and implemented. The focus on transparency, access to and the security of images, as well as operational, technical and competency standards, making systems available to the police and the encouragement of the use of surveillance cameras as a forensic process, are all important facets of the proposed Code”.
	The Government believe that it is an important step in ensuring the right balance between the rights of the public and the pressing need to fight crime.
	The noble Baroness asked why the code covers only public authorities such as the police and local authorities, and some other enforcement agencies that are listed in the order. The list of relevant authorities is set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act, which was debated and approved by Parliament. Therefore, Parliament agreed that the project should begin on a limited basis, effectively covering local authorities and the police. The fact that it is limited in this way does not arise out of this order or the code of practice, but was in the original Act that was passed by Parliament. The code will be mandatory for only a relatively small proportion of CCTV cameras but we believe that it is right and proportionate for others to be encouraged to adopt the code because it is in their interests rather than to be obliged to at this stage.
	The noble Baroness asked what proportion of CCTV cameras will be covered by the code. Although it will be small to start with, because it will be limited to the police and local authorities, the Government believe that all cameras operating in the public space owned by public bodies should be used openly, transparently and effectively, in line with the code. The Surveillance Camera Commissioner will review the implementation of the code, including its take-up by private bodies, and report to the Home Secretary and Parliament in 2015. Indeed, we expect the police and local authorities to be able to demonstrate the benefits of the code and to help raise awareness of it among those who would voluntarily adopt it.
	The noble Baroness asked about costs. The Government believe that the costs of implementing the code are minimal. As she said, the costs cited in the impact assessment are estimated at £1.6 million per year across 350 local authorities; in other words, about £2,000 per year per local authority and £23,000 per year per police force. These costs are minimal in
	comparison to the budgets of these bodies. They are also average costs and will vary depending on the size and nature of the locality. The noble Baroness asked about how costs might vary from force to force and authority to authority. I do not have those details at this time but, as the impact assessment makes clear, we have based the costs per authority and per force on an average that has been acknowledged by the LGA.
	We think that these modest costs are worth while in terms of the expected benefits that they will bring of better quality images to help investigate crime and bring criminals to justice, and greater public confidence. It might be worth me referring to a recent incident to do with the use of automatic number plate recognition in Royston in order to illustrate the benefits of the code and how the relationship between the Information Commissioner and the new Surveillance Camera Commissioner might work. Earlier this month, the Information Commissioner issued an enforcement notice against Hertfordshire Constabulary and its use of automatic number plate recognition. The ICO has ordered the force to review its use of ANPR cameras around Royston. It says that it has created a ring of steel that means no one can drive their car in or out without a record being kept. Although this predates this code, the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice will provide guidance for the police and others and enable the public to hold them directly to account for the proportionality and effectiveness of ANPR and CCTV. We understand that in this example Hertfordshire Constabulary will be working closely with the ICO to ensure that any future deployment of ANPR in and around Royston is proportionate in meeting a clearly stated and justified purpose.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: The Minister has raised a very interesting point, but I think she clarified herself when she said what is happening in a relationship between the Information Commissioner and the police. That is happening now, before this order comes into force, so is the order necessary?

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: Yes, the order is necessary. The reason I used that example to illustrate the point is that the Information Commissioner retains all his enforcement responsibilities regarding the Data Protection Act, both in respect of ANPR and CCTV. The point I was going to make is that the relationship between the Surveillance Camera Commissioner and the Information Commissioner has been set out in a memorandum of understanding. If there were any issue around enforcement in the use of data protection, which was the example that I gave from Royston, then enforcement would remain the responsibility of the ICO.
	The purpose of this code is to go further than enforcement. It is about ensuring that CCTV cameras, which make an important contribution to helping to cut crime, are used in the most effective way. It is about ensuring that the public can have confidence in the way in which cameras are deployed and can see that, in times of reduced budgets and competing priorities, each police force uses this very expensive equipment in the most effective way that it can.
	The noble Baroness raised points about enforcement and judicial review. In terms of enforcement, the Information Commissioner retains his responsibility. The code itself is self-regulating. We did not want to bring in this code and introduce additional burdens unnecessarily on local authorities or on police forces. We wanted the code to ensure good practice and that the best use possible was made of CCTV. The Surveillance Camera Commissioner will be required to provide an annual report to the Home Office and that will be laid before Parliament. He will be able, through his transparent way of monitoring performance, to report to the public on how this equipment is being used.
	Judicial review will operate in the same way as in any other context. A judicial review can be brought only by an individual who is directly affected by the public authority’s actions or decisions in relation to CCTV or by an interest group representing such individuals. The Protection of Freedoms Act makes no reference to the commissioner initiating legal challenges against public authorities and therefore this will not form part of the commissioner’s function or role.
	As I said at the beginning, the purpose of this code is to strike the right balance between protecting the public and upholding civil liberties. We believe that it
	will help to ensure that the purpose of CCTV is clear to the public and that it will help to deliver the results that they have every right to expect.
	Motion agreed.

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Guidance on the Making or Renewing of National Security Determinations) Order 2013
	 — 
	Motion to Approve

Moved by Baroness Stowell of Beeston
	That the draft order laid before the House on 10 June be approved.
	Relevant document: 6th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 17 July.
	Motion agreed.
	House adjourned at 4.15 pm.